Yik Yak threat post leads to arrest November 2015

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

  Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender.

  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: Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via campus police or DPS unit Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Alert attributes the notice to campus authorities Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Issuing authority is named in the message From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is institutional language No outside context used.
  6. present: Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Source present via campus police or DPS unit Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Alert attributes the notice to campus authorities Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Issuing authority is named in the message Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source cue is institutional language Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Source present via campus police or DPS unit Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Alert attributes the notice to campus authorities Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Issuing authority is named in the message Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Source cue is institutional language Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Source present via campus police or DPS unit Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Alert attributes the notice to campus authorities Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Issuing authority is named in the message Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Source cue is institutional language Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Institutional public safety or police branding identifies the sender No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Source present via campus police or DPS unit Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Alert attributes the notice to campus authorities Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Issuing authority is named in the message Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Source cue is institutional language Final pass agrees with the set.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Hazard is the named crime or emergency event.

  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: Hazard is the named crime or emergency event Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Alert names the threat or incident type From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard element is the reported offense No outside context used.
  6. present: Hazard is the named crime or emergency event Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Hazard is the named crime or emergency event Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Hazard is the named crime or emergency event Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Hazard is the named crime or emergency event No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Final pass agrees with the set.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  A street, building, or campus area is specified.

  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: A street, building, or campus area is specified Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Location near campus is given Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice From the full message only.
  5. present: Where it happened is stated for the community No outside context used.
  6. present: A street, building, or campus area is specified Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Location near campus is given Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: A street, building, or campus area is specified Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Location near campus is given Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: A street, building, or campus area is specified Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Location near campus is given Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: A street, building, or campus area is specified No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Location near campus is given Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Final pass agrees with the set.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Guidance is contact police or safety tips.

  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: Guidance is contact police or safety tips Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Community is told what to do next Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear From the full message only.
  5. present: Protective advice appears in the notice No outside context used.
  6. present: Guidance is contact police or safety tips Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Community is told what to do next Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Guidance is contact police or safety tips Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Community is told what to do next Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Guidance is contact police or safety tips Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Community is told what to do next Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Guidance is contact police or safety tips No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Community is told what to do next Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Final pass agrees with the set.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Incident date and time 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: Incident date and time are stated Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Temporal detail is explicit Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Date and approximate time appear Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Time cue supports the narrative From the full message only.
  5. present: When it happened is stated No outside context used.
  6. present: Incident date and time are stated Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Temporal detail is explicit Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Date and approximate time appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Time cue supports the narrative Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: When it happened is stated Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Incident date and time are stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Temporal detail is explicit Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Date and approximate time appear Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Time cue supports the narrative Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: When it happened is stated Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Incident date and time are stated Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Temporal detail is explicit Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Date and approximate time appear Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Time cue supports the narrative Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: When it happened is stated Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Incident date and time are stated No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Temporal detail is explicit Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Date and approximate time appear Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Time cue supports the narrative Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: When it happened is stated Final pass agrees with the set.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome 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: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Consequence for people is stated Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Investigation result is impact language Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone From the full message only.
  5. present: Arrest or no-injury language codes impact No outside context used.
  6. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Consequence for people is stated Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Investigation result is impact language Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Arrest or no-injury language codes impact Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Consequence for people is stated Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Investigation result is impact language Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Arrest or no-injury language codes impact Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Consequence for people is stated Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Investigation result is impact language Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Arrest or no-injury language codes impact Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Consequence for people is stated Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Investigation result is impact language Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Arrest or no-injury language codes impact Final pass agrees with the set.