On November 4, 2015, 18-year-old freshman Faisal Mohammad stabbed four people with a hunting knife on the UC Merced campus before being shot and killed by campus police officers. The attack began at approximately 8:00 a.m. PST in a Classroom Building 2 lecture and continued across campus, prompting a lockdown response coordinated largely through Twitter. All four victims survived; the FBI later concluded Mohammad acted alone but had been inspired by ISIL propaganda.
4 messages in sequence · 4 verified verbatim
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.
Campus is locked down. Do not come to campus. If you're on campus, stay where you are.
Final assessment
All 25 reads agree the source is absent; no sender tag or named authority 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.
Final assessment
All 25 reads agree the hazard is absent; the text says campus is locked down but names no specific threat.
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.
Final assessment
All 25 reads agree a location is given: "campus".
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.
Final assessment
All 25 reads agree guidance is present; the alert instructs recipients not to come to campus and to stay where they are.
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.
Final assessment
All 25 reads agree timing is absent: no clock time, date, or recency cue 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.
Final assessment
Absent, unanimous. Reads agree the stabbing alert names the event or gives instructions but states no explicit harm or severity beyond the hazard name.
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.
Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.
About this analysisCampus Alert Archive. "University of California, Merced: Student stabs four people before being shot and killed by campus police." Incident of November 4, 2015. Added May 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/uc-merced-stabbing-2015-11-04/
Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.