Unlocked first-floor Pepper Canyon suite entered; belongings taken

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

  All 25 reads agree UC San Diego Police Department is named as 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: The UC San Diego Police Department is named as the issuing agency at the top of the notice.
  2. present: Header lines identify the UC San Diego Police Department as the author of this timely warning.
  3. present: Attribution sits with campus police, as the UC San Diego Police Department signs and investigates the case.
  4. present: This notice is sent by the UC San Diego Police Department, which also lists its tip line.
  5. present: Police authorship is explicit because the UC San Diego Police Department titles the message and remains the investigating body.
  6. present: Signatory credit belongs to the UC San Diego Police Department in the opening block.
  7. present: Source identification is the UC San Diego Police Department, repeated as the investigating agency.
  8. present: Issuance comes from the UC San Diego Police Department under a Clery timely warning banner.
  9. present: Byline and footer both tie the notice to University of California San Diego police operations.
  10. present: Origin of the alert is the UC San Diego Police Department, which asks for tips at a listed number.
  11. present: Agency of record is the UC San Diego Police Department as printed in the first line.
  12. present: Authorship is campus police, namely the UC San Diego Police Department that received and is investigating the report.
  13. present: Credit for sending the timely warning belongs to the UC San Diego Police Department.
  14. present: The UC San Diego Police Department is named as the agency issuing this timely warning.
  15. present: Header attribution identifies UC San Diego Police as the sender of the campus notice.
  16. present: UC San Diego Police Department authors the Clery timely warning and asks for tips.
  17. present: The sending body is the campus police department named throughout the message.
  18. present: This notice comes from the UC San Diego Police Department to academics, staff, and students.
  19. present: Campus police, not an unnamed office, is identified as the source of the warning.
  20. present: Issuing authority is UC San Diego Police, which also lists its tip line and Clery purpose.
  21. present: The byline and investigation statement assign the message to UC San Diego Police Department.
  22. present: Sender coding is met because UC San Diego Police Department opens and investigates the case.
  23. present: Police authorship is unmistakable from the department title and contact numbers provided.
  24. present: All-campus addressing still credits UC San Diego Police Department as the sender.
  25. present: The Clery timely warning is issued by the UC San Diego Police Department to the campus community.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree burglary of a suite is a specific named crime.

  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: The alert specifies a burglary in which an unknown person entered a suite and took personal property.
  2. present: A concrete burglary with entry through an unlocked door and theft of personal items is the stated threat.
  3. present: Readers learn that an unknown suspect burglarized a suite and stole personal belongings.
  4. present: The threat is a specific burglary via an unlocked door rather than a vague crime alert.
  5. present: An unknown suspect entered and stole belongings, which is a specific burglary threat.
  6. present: Crime detail identifies burglary of personal belongings from a suite common area.
  7. present: The hazard is a completed burglary by an unknown person who used an unlocked door.
  8. present: Specific offending is burglary with unlawful entry and theft of personal items from a suite.
  9. present: Incident facts describe an unknown suspect stealing personal belongings after entering through an unlocked door.
  10. present: Reported conduct is a burglary of a suite, which is a specific rather than generic threat.
  11. present: The warning cites a burglary in which personal belongings were taken from a residential suite.
  12. present: What happened is a burglary by an unknown suspect who entered an unlocked first floor suite door.
  13. present: Police describe a specific burglary threat involving entry and theft from a campus suite.
  14. present: A burglary by an unknown suspect who entered a suite is the specific threat described.
  15. present: The warning names burglary as the offense an unknown person committed in the suite.
  16. present: An unknown suspect burglarized a residence by entering and taking items from the suite.
  17. present: Burglary of a suite by an unidentified suspect is the concrete hazard warned about.
  18. present: The threat is a completed burglary by a still-at-large unknown suspect.
  19. present: Specific criminal conduct is burglary via unlawful entry of a residential suite.
  20. present: The alert warns of a burglary involving an unknown person who is not in custody.
  21. present: Readers face a specific burglary threat rather than a generic safety reminder.
  22. present: Hazard H is a burglary in which an unknown suspect entered and removed property.
  23. present: The timely warning title and narrative both specify burglary as the crime of concern.
  24. present: An at-large unknown burglar who entered a suite is the specific threat on the page.
  25. present: Specific threat language covers a burglary with no suspect in custody and no description yet.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree Pepper Canyon Apartments first-floor suite locates the event.

  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: The crime is placed in a first floor suite at the Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  2. present: Location is given as the common area of a first floor suite at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  3. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments is named, including the first floor suite common area as the scene.
  4. present: The where element is the first floor suite common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  5. present: Geographic detail points to Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  6. present: The scene is a first floor suite at the Pepper Canyon Apartments in La Jolla campus housing.
  7. present: Address level place is Pepper Canyon Apartments, with the first floor suite common area specified.
  8. present: Campus place names Pepper Canyon Apartments as the site of the suite burglary.
  9. present: The location string is a first floor suite common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  10. present: Where is answered as Pepper Canyon Apartments, first floor suite, common area.
  11. present: Place information names Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  12. present: The apartment complex Pepper Canyon Apartments is the named site, narrowed to a first floor suite.
  13. present: The event is localized to the common area of a first floor suite at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  14. present: The crime is located in a first-floor suite common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  15. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus is given as the incident site.
  16. present: Place is specified as the common area of a first-floor suite at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  17. present: Readers are told the burglary occurred at Pepper Canyon Apartments, first-floor suite.
  18. present: The suite common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments is the geographic focus of the crime.
  19. present: Location detail pins the event to Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  20. present: A first-floor suite common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments is the stated scene.
  21. present: The where element is Pepper Canyon Apartments, a campus residential suite.
  22. present: The incident site is identified as a first-floor common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  23. present: Campus housing at Pepper Canyon Apartments is named as the place of occurrence.
  24. present: L is satisfied by the Pepper Canyon Apartments first-floor suite common-area description.
  25. present: Where is the common area of a first-floor suite at Pepper Canyon Apartments, UC San Diego.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree recipients are told to lock doors, leave if needed, and call 9-1-1.

  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: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows, leave if they find an intruder, and call 911.
  2. present: The message directs people to leave for a safe place, lock entries, hide valuables, and contact police at 911.
  3. present: Protective steps include securing doors and windows, using 911, and leaving the residence if an intruder is found.
  4. present: Campus members are instructed to lock windows, avoid displaying valuables, and call Housing Maintenance if locks fail.
  5. present: If someone is inside a residence, people are told to get out, go somewhere safe, and call or text 911.
  6. present: Advice tells recipients to keep doors locked, leave lights on at night, and report suspicious activity to 911.
  7. present: Guidance tells victims and witnesses to flee if possible, lock down if not, and contact police at once.
  8. present: Recipients get lock, lighting, valuables, and 911 instructions meant to reduce burglary risk.
  9. present: Community members are told how to lock failing windows, hide high value items, and use campus emergency phones.
  10. present: The prevention block orders people to close and lock doors and windows and to call 911 if they see suspicious activity.
  11. present: Protective instruction appears in steps to leave, shelter in a safe room, turn on lights, and phone police.
  12. present: Recipients are instructed not to display computers and wallets near windows and to keep valuables secured.
  13. present: The Clery notice tells the campus to lock up, call 911, and leave for a neighbor or public place if needed.
  14. present: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows, leave if someone is inside, and call 911.
  15. present: Protective steps include securing locks, avoiding displayed valuables, and contacting police.
  16. present: If an intruder is found, people are instructed to leave, shelter in place if needed, and call 9-1-1.
  17. present: Prevention guidance tells the community to lock entries, hide valuables, and report suspicious activity.
  18. present: Audience members get actionable advice to lock housing, call maintenance for broken locks, and dial 911.
  19. present: Instructions tell victims and bystanders to flee to safety, light the space, and summon police.
  20. present: Recipients are directed to keep doors and windows locked and to call 911 for suspicious activity.
  21. present: Protective instruction includes leaving the unit, securing family if trapped, and phoning police.
  22. present: The body tells people how to reduce risk by locking, hiding valuables, and using emergency phones.
  23. present: Guidance to lock windows a short distance, report broken locks, and stay aware is protective.
  24. present: Call or text 9-1-1, leave for a neighbor or public place, and secure valuables are orders to act.
  25. present: Recipients receive lock, evacuate, light-the-room, and emergency-call instructions for self-protection.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree April 2, 2025 from 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and the 11:22 a.m. report supply time.

  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: The burglary is dated April 2, 2025, between 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., with a report at 11:22 a.m. that same day.
  2. present: Times on April 2, 2025, establish when the burglary occurred and when police received the report.
  3. present: Same day timing is clear because both the incident window and the 11:22 a.m. report fall on April 2, 2025.
  4. present: Recency is shown by the April 2, 2025, morning incident and the same date on the warning.
  5. present: Clock times from 1:00 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. and a report at 11:22 a.m. on April 2, 2025, mark when it happened.
  6. present: The warning carries the date April 2, 2025, matching the burglary window that morning.
  7. present: Temporal markers include 11:22 a.m. on April 2, 2025, for the report and a 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. occurrence window.
  8. present: When is answered with April 2, 2025, morning hours and a same day 11:22 a.m. police report.
  9. present: The dated header April 2, 2025, plus clock times for the crime and the report supply recency.
  10. present: Freshness is high because the warning is issued on the same April 2, 2025, date as the burglary.
  11. present: Recency is documented with April 2, 2025, times of 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for the crime and 11:22 a.m. for the call.
  12. present: Time of occurrence is given as between 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on April 2, 2025.
  13. present: All timing sits on April 2, 2025, including the morning burglary window and the midday report.
  14. present: The alert dates the theft window and the 11:22 a.m. report to April 2, 2025.
  15. present: Police received the report at 11:22 a.m. after a 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. crime window.
  16. present: Same-day timing is given for the April 2, 2025 burglary period and the police report.
  17. present: Clock times on April 2, 2025 mark both when the theft happened and when it was reported.
  18. present: Recency is clear from the April 2, 2025 morning timeframe and midday report.
  19. present: The department timestamps the report at 11:22 a.m. on the same April 2, 2025 date.
  20. present: When information covers overnight hours through 10:00 a.m. and the 11:22 a.m. call on April 2, 2025.
  21. present: Dated April 2, 2025, the warning supplies both the crime interval and the report time.
  22. present: Temporal markers place the event between 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on April 2, 2025.
  23. present: Same-day April 2, 2025 timing for the burglary window and police notification shows recency.
  24. present: The 11:22 a.m. report time on April 2, 2025 tells readers how current the event is.
  25. present: When is fixed by the April 2, 2025 overnight-to-morning theft period and midday police report.
• Impactabsent12/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 13 of 25 treat stolen belongings as restating the burglary. Twelve treat that wording as stated property harm.

  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: Loss of belongings is only the named crime itself and no extra harm or seriousness is described.
  2. absent: The writeup never states injuries, weapons, or other severity beyond calling the event a burglary.
  3. absent: Naming theft of items restates the burglary hazard and does not add consequence or severity language.
  4. absent: No outcome such as injury, dollar loss, or lasting danger is given beyond the burglary label.
  5. absent: Severity scoring fails because the text only names burglary and stolen property without describing harm.
  6. absent: Consequences are absent since stolen belongings merely define the offense and no further impact is stated.
  7. absent: The hazard name burglary is not paired with injury, weapon use, or other severity facts.
  8. absent: Nothing in the body explains how severe the event was beyond stating that items were stolen.
  9. absent: Calling the act burglary and noting stolen belongings names the hazard only, so severity is not coded.
  10. absent: No consequence such as assault, large loss, or community harm is described aside from the theft itself.
  11. absent: Severity language is missing because the text never states injuries, threats of violence, or other impacts.
  12. absent: The only outcome mentioned is stolen personal belongings, which restates the burglary rather than adding severity.
  13. absent: Harm or seriousness is not developed beyond labeling the incident a burglary with property taken.
  14. present: Property harm is stated because personal belongings were stolen after unlocked-door entry.
  15. present: The reporting party's belongings were taken, which is explicit property loss rather than a label alone.
  16. present: Stolen personal belongings after entry through an unlocked door count as stated property harm.
  17. present: Severity includes actual theft of personal property, not merely the word burglary.
  18. present: The text records that the suspect stole personal belongings, which is property harm.
  19. present: Unlocked-door entry plus stolen belongings are named as realized harm, so severity is present.
  20. present: Consequences go beyond naming burglary because personal items were actually taken.
  21. present: Property loss is explicit in the claim that the suspect stole the reporting party's belongings.
  22. present: Stated severity includes theft of personal belongings after entry through an unlocked door.
  23. present: The suspect's theft of personal belongings is reported harm, not a bare hazard name.
  24. present: Unlocked-door intrusion and stolen belongings are written as completed property harm.
  25. present: Because personal belongings were stolen, the alert states property harm beyond naming burglary.