Haas School police activity avoid area secure in place then all-clear

To check this alert, SuperGrok Heavy 4.5 (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

  Majority 25/25 present. Institutional branding appears via "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…", which marks 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 branding appears via "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…", which marks the sender.
  2. present: The notice identifies who is speaking through "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  3. present: Source is present because "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" names the issuing campus or alert brand.
  4. present: A campus or alert signature ("UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…") supplies the authority line.
  5. present: Sender identity is clear from the wording "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  6. present: The alert tags an official issuer with "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  7. present: Who is sending this is stated through "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  8. present: Branded language "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" functions as the source element.
  9. present: Campus naming in "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" tells recipients the origin of the message.
  10. present: An official voice is established by "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  11. present: The opening or body includes "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" as institutional source.
  12. present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" is enough to code source present under the branding rule.
  13. present: Recipients can tell the sender from "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  14. present: Source scores present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" is an authority marker.
  15. present: The university or college is referenced as "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  16. present: Alert-system or school labeling ("UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…") covers source.
  17. present: Issuing body is identifiable from "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  18. present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" operates as a branded signature for source.
  19. present: The text attributes the message via "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  20. present: Source present: campus authority language "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  21. present: Readers see "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" and know which campus is speaking.
  22. present: Official sender cue "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" is explicit in the text.
  23. present: Source is coded yes based on "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  24. present: The phrase "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" identifies the responding institution.
  25. present: Authority is named through the fragment "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
• Hazardabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.

  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. absent: Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.
  2. absent: Hazard is absent: the text never names a concrete danger type.
  3. absent: No weather, violence, fire, outage, or other specific hazard is stated.
  4. absent: The message does not say what the threat is.
  5. absent: H=0 because specificity of hazard is missing.
  6. absent: Nothing identifies a particular hazard beyond vague wording.
  7. absent: A specific threat noun is not present.
  8. absent: Hazard fails the named-threat test.
  9. absent: Readers cannot tell what danger is being reported.
  10. absent: No concrete hazard language appears in the body.
  11. absent: The alert omits the what of the emergency.
  12. absent: Generic status language does not satisfy hazard.
  13. absent: Threat type is left unspecified.
  14. absent: Hazard element codes absent on this text.
  15. absent: Without a named hazard, H is zero.
  16. absent: The wording never specifies the danger.
  17. absent: No shots, storm, fire, leak, or similar is stated.
  18. absent: Hazard is too vague to count as present.
  19. absent: Specific threat naming is missing entirely.
  20. absent: H fails: no particular hazard term.
  21. absent: The message skips naming what is wrong.
  22. absent: Only non-specific incident language is used.
  23. absent: Hazard not established by the text.
  24. absent: A concrete hazard label is not found.
  25. absent: Named-threat requirement is not met.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Location is given through "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".

  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: Location is given through "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  2. present: Place is specified as "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  3. present: Where is answered by "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  4. present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" functions as the location element.
  5. present: The alert situates the event with "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  6. present: Geographic or campus place: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  7. present: L=1 because "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" names where this applies.
  8. present: Recipients are told the place via "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  9. present: Location present in the phrase "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  10. present: A campus or building reference "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" covers location.
  11. present: The where cue is "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  12. present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" identifies the affected area.
  13. present: Place naming succeeds with "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  14. present: Location codes yes on "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  15. present: Site detail appears as "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  16. present: The message anchors place with "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  17. present: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" is enough location under the rubric.
  18. present: Affected place language: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  19. present: L is present via "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  20. present: Campus geography is marked by "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  21. present: Where this matters is "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  22. present: The text localizes to "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  23. present: Location element met by "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  24. present: Place is not left blank: "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…".
  25. present: Spatial reference "UC Berkeley WarnMe - Police activity ne…" supports L=1.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Guidance is the instruction "Avoid the Area".

  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 the instruction "Avoid the Area".
  2. present: Protective action appears as "Avoid the Area".
  3. present: Recipients are told to act via "Avoid the Area".
  4. present: "Avoid the Area" is a direct what-to-do line.
  5. present: G=1 because "Avoid the Area" instructs the audience.
  6. present: The alert directs action with "Avoid the Area".
  7. present: Guidance present: "Avoid the Area".
  8. present: A clear instruction is "Avoid the Area".
  9. present: What to do is stated as "Avoid the Area".
  10. present: "Avoid the Area" counts as protective guidance.
  11. present: Action language "Avoid the Area" meets guidance.
  12. present: The message tells people "Avoid the Area".
  13. present: Guidance codes yes on "Avoid the Area".
  14. present: Operational direction: "Avoid the Area".
  15. present: Instructional content includes "Avoid the Area".
  16. present: "Avoid the Area" is audience-facing guidance.
  17. present: G is present via the cue "Avoid the Area".
  18. present: Protective or operational order "Avoid the Area" is explicit.
  19. present: The text's guidance signal is "Avoid the Area".
  20. present: Recipients receive the directive "Avoid the Area".
  21. present: What-to-do element satisfied by "Avoid the Area".
  22. present: "Avoid the Area" tells the public how to respond or operate.
  23. present: Guidance met through "Avoid the Area".
  24. present: Action instruction present: "Avoid the Area".
  25. present: The alert's order to the audience is "Avoid the Area".
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Time is marked by "until further notice".

  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: Time is marked by "until further notice".
  2. present: A temporal cue appears as "until further notice".
  3. present: When is answered with "until further notice".
  4. present: "until further notice" supplies timing or recency.
  5. present: T=1 because "until further notice" is a time reference.
  6. present: Clock or calendar language: "until further notice".
  7. present: The alert times the event with "until further notice".
  8. present: Temporal detail "until further notice" is present.
  9. present: Time element met by "until further notice".
  10. present: Recipients see timing via "until further notice".
  11. present: "until further notice" counts as the time cue.
  12. present: When-language includes "until further notice".
  13. present: T codes yes on "until further notice".
  14. present: A schedule or day marker "until further notice" appears.
  15. present: Timing is explicit: "until further notice".
  16. present: The text anchors time with "until further notice".
  17. present: "until further notice" is enough for the time element.
  18. present: Recency or clock cue "until further notice" is stated.
  19. present: T is present via "until further notice".
  20. present: Date or hour language "until further notice" supports T=1.
  21. present: Temporal reference: "until further notice".
  22. present: The when signal is "until further notice".
  23. present: Time present through "until further notice".
  24. present: "until further notice" tells recipients the relevant when.
  25. present: Schedule wording "until further notice" meets time.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.

  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. absent: No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.
  2. absent: Impact is absent: the text does not say what the threat could do.
  3. absent: Nothing states danger level, injuries, or disruptive effect.
  4. absent: I=0 because severity or harm is not conveyed.
  5. absent: Hazard may be named, but impact language is missing.
  6. absent: The alert omits consequence wording.
  7. absent: Impact fails the harm-or-severity test.
  8. absent: Readers are not told stakes or effects.
  9. absent: No life-safety or operational impact phrase is present.
  10. absent: Impact element codes absent.
  11. absent: Without consequence language, I is zero.
  12. absent: Severity is left unstated.
  13. absent: The text stops short of impact.
  14. absent: Harm potential is not described.
  15. absent: I fails on bare description without effects.
  16. absent: No dangerous/closed/injury-style impact cue appears.
  17. absent: Impact not established by the wording.
  18. absent: Consequence detail is missing.
  19. absent: The message lacks severity framing.
  20. absent: I is absent under the impact rule.
  21. absent: Stakes for people or property are not stated.
  22. absent: No disruption or harm language is included.
  23. absent: Impact cannot be coded present here.
  24. absent: Effect-on-campus language is omitted.
  25. absent: Severity/consequence element fails.