Awareness notice for off-campus assaults, robberies, and burglary

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

  Final assessment

  Assaults, robberies, and occupied burglary are named hazards.

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

  Final assessment

  Specific blocks of Stratford, Ostrom, and Comstock are listed.

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

  Final assessment

  Be aware of surroundings, contact SPD/DPS, use Silent Witness.

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

  Final assessment

  Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident.

  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: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time or date cue is usable.
  2. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Clock or calendar detail is present.
  3. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Timing of the event is stated.
  4. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time window is specific enough.
  5. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Date stamp supports time present.
  6. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Independent re-read agrees.
  7. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time element meets the bar.
  8. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Not merely undated prose.
  9. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Temporal anchor is in the text.
  10. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Recipients can place when it happened.
  11. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time coding is straightforward.
  12. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Same judgment on second look.
  13. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Wording alone settles time.
  14. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Pass finds time present.
  15. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Explicit hour or day appears.
  16. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Temporal detail is operational.
  17. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time present under the rubric.
  18. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. No outside context required.
  19. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Date/time language is decisive.
  20. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Calendar cue is clear.
  21. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Timing is not vague.
  22. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Time test satisfied.
  23. absent: Minority read differs on this element. Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Re-checked against full text.
  24. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Strict rubric still finds time.
  25. present: Multiple dated times of day for each listed incident. Final independent coding concurs.
• Impactpresent24/25

  Final assessment

  Six student-involved crimes signal ongoing community risk.

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