Public safety notice on Bitcoin-related email scam

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

  Department of Public Safety is the institutional source.

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

  Final assessment

  Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the 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: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Hazard is specifically named.
  2. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. The danger is explicit in text.
  3. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Crime or condition is identified.
  4. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Named incident type is the hazard.
  5. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Clear what recipients should fear.
  6. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Hazard language is concrete.
  7. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Not merely a generic notice.
  8. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Incident type is stated outright.
  9. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Risk is identified by name.
  10. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Threat type is readable on face.
  11. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Hazard element meets the bar.
  12. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Confirmed from full alert wording.
  13. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Independent pass finds hazard present.
  14. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Event described is the hazard.
  15. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. No need for outside knowledge.
  16. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Re-read supports hazard present.
  17. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Specific harm pathway is stated.
  18. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Alert centers on a named problem.
  19. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Hazard coding is straightforward.
  20. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Wording alone decides this.
  21. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Same call on second review.
  22. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Hazard present by majority test.
  23. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Distinct from mere logistics.
  24. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Public-warning hazard test passed.
  25. present: Fraudulent Bitcoin-related email scam is the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No specific place is named beyond the university community.

  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. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. No specific place is named.
  2. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Only community-wide scope appears.
  3. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Lacks a usable geographic anchor.
  4. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. No street, building, or block given.
  5. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Location stays at whole-campus level.
  6. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Recipients cannot pinpoint a scene.
  7. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Absent under the location rubric.
  8. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Independent re-read finds no place.
  9. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. No map-level detail in the text.
  10. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Location element fails the bar.
  11. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Service-area language is not a site.
  12. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Not spatially specific enough.
  13. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Place is not operationally usable.
  14. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Coding stays absent for location.
  15. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Same absence on second look.
  16. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Wording alone shows no location.
  17. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. No address or named lot appears.
  18. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Geographic cue is missing.
  19. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Location judged not present.
  20. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Pass finds location absent.
  21. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. No scene coordinates in prose.
  22. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Campus-wide only is insufficient.
  23. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Location test not satisfied.
  24. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Strict rubric keeps location off.
  25. absent: No specific place is named beyond the university community. Final independent coding concurs.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Remain vigilant when opening email is protective guidance.

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

  Final assessment

  Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date.

  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: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time or date cue is usable.
  2. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Clock or calendar detail is present.
  3. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Timing of the event is stated.
  4. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time window is specific enough.
  5. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Date stamp supports time present.
  6. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Independent re-read agrees.
  7. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time element meets the bar.
  8. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Not merely undated prose.
  9. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Temporal anchor is in the text.
  10. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Recipients can place when it happened.
  11. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time coding is straightforward.
  12. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Same judgment on second look.
  13. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Wording alone settles time.
  14. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Pass finds time present.
  15. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Explicit hour or day appears.
  16. absent: Minority read differs on this element. Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Temporal detail is operational.
  17. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time present under the rubric.
  18. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. No outside context required.
  19. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Date/time language is decisive.
  20. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Calendar cue is clear.
  21. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Timing is not vague.
  22. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Time test satisfied.
  23. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Re-checked against full text.
  24. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Strict rubric still finds time.
  25. present: Thursday, December 13, 2018 is a specific date. Final independent coding concurs.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  No threat to the community is an impact/status statement.

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