Fraudulent phone scheme public safety notice

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

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

  Final assessment

  Scam or fraud scheme is the named 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: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. From the full message only.
  2. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. No outside context used.
  3. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Strict rubric application.
  4. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
  5. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
  6. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
  7. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Wording is decisive here.
  8. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
  9. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
  10. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
  11. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
  12. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  13. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Judged present from named agency.
  14. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Agency or office is named.
  15. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
  16. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
  17. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
  18. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  19. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  20. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Source present in opening framing.
  21. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
  22. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
  23. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Independent review agrees.
  24. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
  25. present: Scam or fraud scheme is the named hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No specific place is named.

  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. Element coded from wording alone.
  2. absent: No specific place is named. Same conclusion on second look.
  3. absent: No specific place is named. Matches the public-warning test.
  4. absent: No specific place is named. Wording is decisive here.
  5. absent: No specific place is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
  6. absent: No specific place is named. Source attribution is explicit.
  7. absent: No specific place is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
  8. absent: No specific place is named. Reads as official campus channel.
  9. absent: No specific place is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  10. absent: No specific place is named. Judged present from named agency.
  11. absent: No specific place is named. Agency or office is named.
  12. absent: No specific place is named. Public safety sender is clear.
  13. absent: No specific place is named. Official notice framing supports source.
  14. absent: No specific place is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
  15. absent: No specific place is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  16. absent: No specific place is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  17. absent: No specific place is named. Source present in opening framing.
  18. absent: No specific place is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
  19. absent: No specific place is named. Final independent coding concurs.
  20. absent: No specific place is named. Independent review agrees.
  21. absent: No specific place is named. Confirmed on re-read.
  22. absent: No specific place is named. Based solely on the alert text.
  23. absent: No specific place is named. From the full message only.
  24. absent: No specific place is named. No outside context used.
  25. absent: No specific place is named. Strict rubric application.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Protective actions and reporting instructions are present.

  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: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Wording is decisive here.
  2. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Clear institutional sender cue.
  3. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source attribution is explicit.
  4. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Sender language is unambiguous.
  5. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Reads as official campus channel.
  6. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  7. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Judged present from named agency.
  8. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Agency or office is named.
  9. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Public safety sender is clear.
  10. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Official notice framing supports source.
  11. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source element satisfies the bar.
  12. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  13. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  14. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source present in opening framing.
  15. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Institutional voice is obvious.
  16. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Final independent coding concurs.
  17. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Independent review agrees.
  18. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Confirmed on re-read.
  19. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Based solely on the alert text.
  20. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. From the full message only.
  21. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. No outside context used.
  22. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Strict rubric application.
  23. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Element coded from wording alone.
  24. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Same conclusion on second look.
  25. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Matches the public-warning test.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Date and time cues are stated.

  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: Date and time cues are stated. Sender language is unambiguous.
  2. present: Date and time cues are stated. Reads as official campus channel.
  3. present: Date and time cues are stated. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  4. present: Date and time cues are stated. Judged present from named agency.
  5. present: Date and time cues are stated. Agency or office is named.
  6. present: Date and time cues are stated. Public safety sender is clear.
  7. present: Date and time cues are stated. Official notice framing supports source.
  8. present: Date and time cues are stated. Source element satisfies the bar.
  9. present: Date and time cues are stated. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  10. present: Date and time cues are stated. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  11. present: Date and time cues are stated. Source present in opening framing.
  12. present: Date and time cues are stated. Institutional voice is obvious.
  13. present: Date and time cues are stated. Final independent coding concurs.
  14. present: Date and time cues are stated. Independent review agrees.
  15. present: Date and time cues are stated. Confirmed on re-read.
  16. present: Date and time cues are stated. Based solely on the alert text.
  17. present: Date and time cues are stated. From the full message only.
  18. present: Date and time cues are stated. No outside context used.
  19. present: Date and time cues are stated. Strict rubric application.
  20. present: Date and time cues are stated. Element coded from wording alone.
  21. present: Date and time cues are stated. Same conclusion on second look.
  22. present: Date and time cues are stated. Matches the public-warning test.
  23. present: Date and time cues are stated. Wording is decisive here.
  24. present: Date and time cues are stated. Clear institutional sender cue.
  25. present: Date and time cues are stated. Source attribution is explicit.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Realized harm, status, or ongoing risk is described.

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