Peeping incidents reported at Field and Grayson Halls

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

  Present: Source in UMPD advisory.

  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: UMPD branding identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via University of Massachusetts Amherst Police Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: UMPD is named as investigating agency Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Public safety advisory is attributed to UMPD From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is UMPD language No outside context used.
  6. present: Police department is identified Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Sender identity is clear Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Issuing authority is UMPD Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: UMPD branding identifies the sender Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source present via University of Massachusetts Amherst Police Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: UMPD is named as investigating agency Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Public safety advisory is attributed to UMPD Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Source cue is UMPD language Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Police department is identified Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Sender identity is clear Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Issuing authority is UMPD One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: UMPD branding identifies the sender Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Source present via University of Massachusetts Amherst Police Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: UMPD is named as investigating agency Message length noted.
  20. present: Public safety advisory is attributed to UMPD Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Source cue is UMPD language Element call is firm.
  22. present: Police department is identified Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Sender identity is clear No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Issuing authority is UMPD Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: UMPD branding identifies the sender Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Hazard in UMPD advisory.

  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: Names a specific hazard such as assault or peeping Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Hazard is concrete Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Offense type is explicit From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording No outside context used.
  6. present: The advisory states what occurred Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Named crime or threat appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Concrete hazard is identified Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Names a specific hazard such as assault or peeping Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hazard is concrete Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Offense type is explicit Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: The advisory states what occurred Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Named crime or threat appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Concrete hazard is identified One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Names a specific hazard such as assault or peeping Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Hazard is concrete Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Offense type is explicit Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Element call is firm.
  22. present: The advisory states what occurred Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Named crime or threat appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Concrete hazard is identified Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Names a specific hazard such as assault or peeping Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Location in UMPD advisory.

  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 campus place or street is stated Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Location cues appear Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Geographic detail is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Named place information is included From the full message only.
  5. present: Location element is satisfied No outside context used.
  6. present: Where-information is present Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Campus geography is referenced Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Place names appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: A campus place or street is stated Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Location cues appear Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Geographic detail is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Named place information is included Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Location element is satisfied Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Where-information is present Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Campus geography is referenced Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Place names appear One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: A campus place or street is stated Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Location cues appear Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Geographic detail is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Named place information is included Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Location element is satisfied Element call is firm.
  22. present: Where-information is present Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Campus geography is referenced No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Place names appear Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: A campus place or street is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Guidance in UMPD advisory.

  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: Provides safety tips or reporting guidance Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Contact UMPD or awareness language appears Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Actionable advice is present From the full message only.
  5. present: Protective guidance is included No outside context used.
  6. present: Readers are told how to respond Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Safety action wording appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Reporting instructions are present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Provides safety tips or reporting guidance Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Contact UMPD or awareness language appears Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Actionable advice is present Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Protective guidance is included Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Readers are told how to respond Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Safety action wording appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Reporting instructions are present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Provides safety tips or reporting guidance Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Contact UMPD or awareness language appears Message length noted.
  20. present: Actionable advice is present Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Protective guidance is included Element call is firm.
  22. present: Readers are told how to respond Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Safety action wording appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Reporting instructions are present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Provides safety tips or reporting guidance Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Time in UMPD advisory.

  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: Includes dates or times Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Temporal anchors appear Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Time element is satisfied From the full message only.
  5. present: When-information is present No outside context used.
  6. present: Dates of occurrence are included Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Temporal detail is explicit Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Time cues appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Includes dates or times Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Temporal anchors appear Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Time element is satisfied Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: When-information is present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Dates of occurrence are included Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Temporal detail is explicit Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Time cues appear One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Includes dates or times Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Temporal anchors appear Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Message length noted.
  20. present: Time element is satisfied Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: When-information is present Element call is firm.
  22. present: Dates of occurrence are included Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Temporal detail is explicit No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Time cues appear Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Includes dates or times Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Impact in UMPD advisory.

  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: Conveys harm, fear, or severity language Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Impact is present via consequence cues Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Consequence framing appears Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Seriousness language is included From the full message only.
  5. present: Impact element is satisfied No outside context used.
  6. present: Harm outcomes are stated Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Severity cues appear Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Impact language is present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Conveys harm, fear, or severity language Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Impact is present via consequence cues Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Consequence framing appears Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Seriousness language is included Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Impact element is satisfied Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Harm outcomes are stated Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Severity cues appear Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Impact language is present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Conveys harm, fear, or severity language Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Impact is present via consequence cues Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Consequence framing appears Message length noted.
  20. present: Seriousness language is included Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Impact element is satisfied Element call is firm.
  22. present: Harm outcomes are stated Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Severity cues appear No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Impact language is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Conveys harm, fear, or severity language Synthesis-ready vote recorded.