Near off-campus robbery reported at 955 Ackerman Ave

To check this alert, Claude (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

  DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert.

  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: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Independent review agrees.
  2. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. From the full message only.
  5. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. No outside context used.
  6. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Strict rubric application.
  7. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Clear institutional sender cue.
  12. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Source attribution is explicit.
  13. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Sender language is unambiguous.
  14. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Reads as official campus channel.
  15. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  16. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Judged present from named agency.
  17. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Agency or office is named.
  18. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Public safety sender is clear.
  19. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Official notice framing supports source.
  20. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Source element satisfies the bar.
  21. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  22. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  23. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Source present in opening framing.
  24. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Institutional voice is obvious.
  25. present: DPS relaying SUNY ESF Public Safety Chief alert. Final independent coding concurs.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Robbery is the named crime hazard.

  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. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Hazard is specifically named.
  2. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. The danger is explicit in text.
  3. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Crime or condition is identified.
  4. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Named incident type is the hazard.
  5. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Clear what recipients should fear.
  6. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Hazard language is concrete.
  7. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Not merely a generic notice.
  8. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Incident type is stated outright.
  9. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Risk is identified by name.
  10. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Threat type is readable on face.
  11. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Hazard element meets the bar.
  12. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Confirmed from full alert wording.
  13. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Independent pass finds hazard present.
  14. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Event described is the hazard.
  15. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. No need for outside knowledge.
  16. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Re-read supports hazard present.
  17. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Specific harm pathway is stated.
  18. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Alert centers on a named problem.
  19. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Hazard coding is straightforward.
  20. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Wording alone decides this.
  21. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Same call on second review.
  22. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Hazard present by majority test.
  23. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Distinct from mere logistics.
  24. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Public-warning hazard test passed.
  25. present: Robbery is the named crime hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address.

  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: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Place detail is specific enough.
  2. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location cue is usable on campus.
  3. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Named place supports location present.
  4. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Address or area is explicit.
  5. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Recipients can locate the scene.
  6. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Geographic detail is in the text.
  7. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location element meets the bar.
  8. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Not just a vague campus-wide label.
  9. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Independent re-read agrees.
  10. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Place is coded from wording alone.
  11. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Specific block or building appears.
  12. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location is concrete in the alert.
  13. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Scene is spatially identifiable.
  14. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Map-level detail is present.
  15. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location present under the rubric.
  16. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Same judgment on second look.
  17. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Place language is decisive.
  18. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. No outside context required.
  19. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Named site is clear.
  20. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location coding is straightforward.
  21. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Pass finds location present.
  22. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Geographic anchor is sufficient.
  23. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Location test satisfied.
  24. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Wording alone settles location.
  25. present: 955 Ackerman Ave is a specific address. Final independent coding concurs.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Stay away from the area and call SPD with information.

  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. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Protective action is stated.
  2. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Recipients are told what to do.
  3. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Clear call-to-action guidance.
  4. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Guidance is actionable on its face.
  5. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Safety steps are listed or implied as directives.
  6. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Report/call instructions count as guidance.
  7. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Avoidance or vigilance language is present.
  8. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Guidance element meets the bar.
  9. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Independent re-read agrees.
  10. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Instructional language is explicit.
  11. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Readers know how to respond.
  12. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Protective guidance is concrete.
  13. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Action cues are in the alert.
  14. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Same conclusion on second look.
  15. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Guidance coded from wording alone.
  16. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. No outside context required.
  17. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Directive phrasing is clear.
  18. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Guidance present under the rubric.
  19. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Pass finds guidance present.
  20. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Public-warning guidance test passed.
  21. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Recipients get do/don't instructions.
  22. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Contact numbers support guidance.
  23. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Wording alone settles guidance.
  24. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Strict application still finds guidance.
  25. present: Stay away from the area and call SPD with information. Final independent coding concurs.
• Timepresent24/25

  Final assessment

  Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m.

  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. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time or date cue is usable.
  2. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Clock or calendar detail is present.
  3. absent: Minority read differs on this element. Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Timing of the event is stated.
  4. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time window is specific enough.
  5. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Date stamp supports time present.
  6. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Independent re-read agrees.
  7. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time element meets the bar.
  8. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Not merely undated prose.
  9. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Temporal anchor is in the text.
  10. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Recipients can place when it happened.
  11. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time coding is straightforward.
  12. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Same judgment on second look.
  13. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Wording alone settles time.
  14. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Pass finds time present.
  15. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Explicit hour or day appears.
  16. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Temporal detail is operational.
  17. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time present under the rubric.
  18. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. No outside context required.
  19. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Date/time language is decisive.
  20. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Calendar cue is clear.
  21. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Timing is not vague.
  22. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Time test satisfied.
  23. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Re-checked against full text.
  24. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Strict rubric still finds time.
  25. present: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 at approximately 9:44 p.m. Final independent coding concurs.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status.

  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. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Impact or status is described.
  2. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Consequences or outcome appear.
  3. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Severity or scope is stated.
  4. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Harm already realized is noted.
  5. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Operational impact is explicit.
  6. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Status language supports impact.
  7. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Impact element meets the bar.
  8. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Independent re-read agrees.
  9. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Effects on people or systems appear.
  10. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Not hazard alone; impact is separate.
  11. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Same conclusion on second look.
  12. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Wording alone settles impact.
  13. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Pass finds impact present.
  14. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Outcome or threat-level is clear.
  15. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Impact coded from wording alone.
  16. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. No outside context required.
  17. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Public-warning impact test passed.
  18. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Scope of disruption is given.
  19. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Status update implies impact.
  20. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Realized or potential harm is named.
  21. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Impact language is concrete.
  22. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Re-checked against full alert.
  23. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Strict rubric still finds impact.
  24. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Impact present under majority logic.
  25. present: Active scene investigation implies ongoing incident status. Final independent coding concurs.