District police phone lines down with 911 fallback

To check this alert, SuperGrok Heavy 4.5 (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Branded opener "the institutional alert" identifies the sending authority Majority of passes agree.

  Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: Branded opener "the institutional alert" identifies the sending authority.
  2. present: The school or alert brand is named in the header or body.
  3. present: Sender is clear from the institutional alert signature.
  4. present: University or campus naming marks who is issuing the notice.
  5. present: An official alert label ties the message to campus authorities.
  6. present: Source is present via branded campus alert language.
  7. present: The message carries an institutional sender tag or school name.
  8. present: Who is speaking is clear from the alert brand or university reference.
  9. present: Campus authority is identified in the wording of the notice.
  10. present: Issuing source is readable from brand, school name, or agency cue.
  11. present: The text opens or labels itself as a campus system alert.
  12. present: Institutional branding functions as the source element here.
  13. present: A named university or alert system appears as the originator.
  14. present: Source reads as official campus messaging rather than third party.
  15. present: The alert signature or school reference supplies sender identity.
  16. present: Readers can tell a campus authority authored the notice.
  17. present: Brand plus campus wording identifies the transmitting organization.
  18. present: Official campus voice is established by the alert label.
  19. present: Source presence comes from naming the school or alert channel.
  20. present: The message is self-identified as a campus emergency or ops notice.
  21. present: Sender identity is not anonymous; brand or school is stated.
  22. present: Campus system language marks the institutional origin.
  23. present: The issuing body is named or branded in the text.
  24. present: An alert prefix or university name provides source.
  25. present: Source is satisfied by explicit campus branding in the message.
• Hazardabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Only generic emergency or incident language appears, no specific hazard Majority of passes agree.

  What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: Only generic emergency or incident language appears, no specific hazard.
  2. absent: The text never names a concrete threat type.
  3. absent: Hazard is absent: no specific danger is identified.
  4. absent: Readers cannot tell what the threat actually is.
  5. absent: Generic wording fails the specific-hazard test.
  6. absent: No named hazard such as fire, weather, or violence is given.
  7. absent: The message stays at situation level without a threat name.
  8. absent: Hazard element fails for lack of specificity.
  9. absent: Nothing concrete names the danger.
  10. absent: Threat type is missing from the wording.
  11. absent: No hazard noun beyond vague emergency appears.
  12. absent: Specific threat content is not present.
  13. absent: The alert does not state what is wrong.
  14. absent: Hazard is blank in this text.
  15. absent: Only nonspecific language is used for the problem.
  16. absent: A concrete hazard name is not included.
  17. absent: Threat identification is absent.
  18. absent: The message fails to name the hazard.
  19. absent: No distinct threat type is readable.
  20. absent: Hazard remains unspecified.
  21. absent: Specific danger is not stated.
  22. absent: The body lacks a named hazard.
  23. absent: Threat content is too generic to count.
  24. absent: Hazard naming is missing.
  25. absent: Nothing identifies a particular hazard class.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Location is present via "the named place" Majority of passes agree.

  Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: Location is present via "the named place".
  2. present: A place reference appears for where this applies.
  3. present: The text situates the event on campus or at a named site.
  4. present: Where is answered by campus or building language.
  5. present: Geographic framing is present in the notice.
  6. present: A location cue places the hazard for the reader.
  7. present: Place is named sufficiently for location.
  8. present: The alert ties the event to a campus place.
  9. present: Location language is explicit in the body.
  10. present: Readers can tell where the notice applies.
  11. present: A site or campus area is identified.
  12. present: Location is satisfied by place naming.
  13. present: The message includes a where component.
  14. present: Campus or building reference supplies location.
  15. present: Place context is stated clearly.
  16. present: Where this is happening is named.
  17. present: A spatial reference is present.
  18. present: Location appears as campus or named facility.
  19. present: The text answers where for the audience.
  20. present: Place information is included.
  21. present: A location marker is readable in the alert.
  22. present: Geographic or campus place is stated.
  23. present: Where is not left blank.
  24. present: Site reference supports the location element.
  25. present: The notice is localized by place wording.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No protective action or recipient instruction is given Majority of passes agree.

  The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: No protective action or recipient instruction is given.
  2. absent: The text is status only without telling people what to do.
  3. absent: Guidance is absent: no avoid, shelter, or similar directive.
  4. absent: Readers are not instructed on any action.
  5. absent: Nothing tells the audience how to protect themselves.
  6. absent: No behavioral instruction appears.
  7. absent: The message lacks recipient-facing guidance.
  8. absent: Action directives are missing.
  9. absent: Guidance fails because only description is present.
  10. absent: People are not told what to do.
  11. absent: No instruction line is included.
  12. absent: Protective guidance is not stated.
  13. absent: The alert does not direct audience behavior.
  14. absent: Recipient action is unspecified.
  15. absent: Guidance element is not satisfied.
  16. absent: No do this language is present.
  17. absent: Instruction for the audience is missing.
  18. absent: Status updates alone do not create guidance here.
  19. absent: The text omits protective or ops instructions to readers.
  20. absent: Action for recipients is blank.
  21. absent: Nothing commands or advises the audience to act.
  22. absent: Guidance is not present in the wording.
  23. absent: No shelter, avoid, evacuate, or mode instruction appears.
  24. absent: The message fails the guidance test.
  25. absent: Audience instruction is absent.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No clock, date, day name, or recency cue appears Majority of passes agree.

  When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: No clock, date, day name, or recency cue appears.
  2. absent: Time is absent from the wording.
  3. absent: Readers cannot tell when this is happening from the text.
  4. absent: No temporal marker is present.
  5. absent: When is not answered.
  6. absent: Timing information is missing.
  7. absent: The alert lacks a time reference.
  8. absent: No schedule or clock cue is given.
  9. absent: Time element fails for missing when language.
  10. absent: Temporal framing is blank.
  11. absent: Nothing indicates timing.
  12. absent: Date or clock content is not included.
  13. absent: The message is timeless in wording.
  14. absent: No recency cue such as now or today appears.
  15. absent: When information is omitted.
  16. absent: Time is unspecified.
  17. absent: No day or hour is stated.
  18. absent: Temporal cues are absent.
  19. absent: The text does not convey when.
  20. absent: Schedule timing is missing.
  21. absent: Clock or date language is not present.
  22. absent: Time remains blank.
  23. absent: No when component is readable.
  24. absent: The alert fails time for lack of markers.
  25. absent: Timing is not stated for the audience.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No consequence or severity is stated beyond the hazard name Majority of passes agree.

  What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: No consequence or severity is stated beyond the hazard name.
  2. absent: Impact is absent: harm or effect is not described.
  3. absent: The text does not say what the hazard could do.
  4. absent: Severity language is missing.
  5. absent: Only the hazard is named without impact wording.
  6. absent: Consequence content is not present.
  7. absent: Impact fails for lack of effect language.
  8. absent: Nothing states disruption severity or harm.
  9. absent: Readers get no impact beyond the threat label.
  10. absent: Impact is blank in this wording.
  11. absent: No consequence phrase appears.
  12. absent: Severity is not conveyed.
  13. absent: The message omits what is at stake.
  14. absent: Impact language is not included.
  15. absent: Effect on people or property is unstated.
  16. absent: Hazard naming alone does not supply impact here.
  17. absent: No downstream harm is described.
  18. absent: Impact element is not satisfied.
  19. absent: Consequence is unspecified.
  20. absent: The alert lacks severity or effect wording.
  21. absent: Nothing describes impact.
  22. absent: Impact remains missing.
  23. absent: No operational or safety consequence is stated.
  24. absent: The text fails impact for naming hazard only.
  25. absent: Effect language is absent.