Sutardja Dai Hall gas leak avoid area 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.

• Sourceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No campus brand, agency name, or alert signature appears in the text.

  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. absent: No campus brand, agency name, or alert signature appears in the text.
  2. absent: The wording never says who is sending the notice.
  3. absent: Source is absent: no university, police, or alert-system label is stated.
  4. absent: Nothing identifies an issuing authority or branded channel.
  5. absent: No sender tag or institutional self-naming is present.
  6. absent: Recipients cannot tell the source from the body alone.
  7. absent: Source codes zero because authority language is missing.
  8. absent: There is no ALERT brand or school name to credit as source.
  9. absent: The message jumps to content without naming who issued it.
  10. absent: No public-safety or campus office is identified as sender.
  11. absent: Source fails: blank on branded signature and agency.
  12. absent: Issuing body is not stated in any form.
  13. absent: Without a signature or school name, source is absent.
  14. absent: The text omits sender identification entirely.
  15. absent: No authority cue meets the source element rule.
  16. absent: Source not present under the branding or agency tests.
  17. absent: Who authored the alert is left unspecified.
  18. absent: There is no institutional label to treat as source.
  19. absent: Sender identity cannot be read from the message.
  20. absent: Source scores absent on this wording.
  21. absent: No alert header or campus self-reference is included.
  22. absent: The body never attributes the notice to an issuer.
  23. absent: Authority line is missing from start to end.
  24. absent: Source element fails for lack of named sender.
  25. absent: Nothing in the text names a sending organization.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Hazard is specific: the text names "gas leak".

  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 specific: the text names "gas leak".
  2. present: A concrete threat appears as "gas leak".
  3. present: The what of the emergency is "gas leak", not a vague incident label.
  4. present: "gas leak" satisfies hazard by naming the condition or threat.
  5. present: Readers learn the hazard type from "gas leak".
  6. present: Hazard present via the explicit phrase "gas leak".
  7. present: The threat is particularized as "gas leak".
  8. present: Coding H=1 because "gas leak" is a named hazard.
  9. present: Specific danger language: "gas leak".
  10. present: The alert states the problem as "gas leak".
  11. present: Hazard element met by "gas leak".
  12. present: "gas leak" is more than a generic emergency word.
  13. present: Threat identity is clear from "gas leak".
  14. present: The message pins the hazard to "gas leak".
  15. present: Named condition "gas leak" counts as hazard.
  16. present: H is present: "gas leak" tells what is wrong.
  17. present: Concrete hazard wording includes "gas leak".
  18. present: The incident type is given as "gas leak".
  19. present: "gas leak" is the stated threat or weather/system hazard.
  20. present: Hazard codes yes on "gas leak".
  21. present: Specifics beat generics here: "gas leak".
  22. present: The text's hazard signal is "gas leak".
  23. present: What happened is labeled "gas leak".
  24. present: Hazard present with the phrase "gas leak".
  25. present: Threat naming succeeds through "gas leak".
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Location is given through "Dai Hall".

  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 "Dai Hall".
  2. present: Place is specified as "Dai Hall".
  3. present: Where is answered by "Dai Hall".
  4. present: "Dai Hall" functions as the location element.
  5. present: The alert situates the event with "Dai Hall".
  6. present: Geographic or campus place: "Dai Hall".
  7. present: L=1 because "Dai Hall" names where this applies.
  8. present: Recipients are told the place via "Dai Hall".
  9. present: Location present in the phrase "Dai Hall".
  10. present: A campus or building reference "Dai Hall" covers location.
  11. present: The where cue is "Dai Hall".
  12. present: "Dai Hall" identifies the affected area.
  13. present: Place naming succeeds with "Dai Hall".
  14. present: Location codes yes on "Dai Hall".
  15. present: Site detail appears as "Dai Hall".
  16. present: The message anchors place with "Dai Hall".
  17. present: "Dai Hall" is enough location under the rubric.
  18. present: Affected place language: "Dai Hall".
  19. present: L is present via "Dai Hall".
  20. present: Campus geography is marked by "Dai Hall".
  21. present: Where this matters is "Dai Hall".
  22. present: The text localizes to "Dai Hall".
  23. present: Location element met by "Dai Hall".
  24. present: Place is not left blank: "Dai Hall".
  25. present: Spatial reference "Dai Hall" 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".
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears.

  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. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears.
  2. absent: Time is absent from the alert text.
  3. absent: Nothing tells recipients when this applies.
  4. absent: T=0 because temporal cues are missing.
  5. absent: No day, hour, or immediate language is stated.
  6. absent: The message omits timing entirely.
  7. absent: Time element fails on this wording.
  8. absent: When is left unspecified.
  9. absent: No calendar or clock reference is present.
  10. absent: Temporal information cannot be found.
  11. absent: Without a time cue, T is zero.
  12. absent: The alert is silent on schedule.
  13. absent: Time codes absent here.
  14. absent: Recency language is missing.
  15. absent: T fails the when test.
  16. absent: No today/now/clock marker appears.
  17. absent: Timing is not established by the text.
  18. absent: Date and hour are both omitted.
  19. absent: Temporal element is not satisfied.
  20. absent: The body lacks any when cue.
  21. absent: Time not present under the rubric.
  22. absent: Schedule detail is blank.
  23. absent: No temporal anchor is given.
  24. absent: T is absent on timeless wording.
  25. absent: When-information is not included.
• 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.