Armed robbery in Lot 25

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

  S 25/25 majority present. NinerAlert is a branded alert header naming the campus issuer.

  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: NinerAlert is a branded alert signature that names who is sending the notice.
  2. present: The lead token NinerAlert identifies the campus emergency product as the source.
  3. present: Branded NinerAlert counts as sender under the rubric even without a named police unit.
  4. present: The opening tag NinerAlert is a campus alert brand, which Source accepts.
  5. present: A named alert brand, NinerAlert, is the sending authority on the text.
  6. present: The notice opens with NinerAlert, a signature tag that identifies the issuer.
  7. present: Sender is present because NinerAlert is printed as the product name at the start.
  8. present: The first clause NinerAlert functions as the byline of the alerting office.
  9. present: NinerAlert followed by a colon is the same class of branded tag the rubric lists.
  10. present: Who sent it is answered by the NinerAlert header on the first line.
  11. present: The Source element is met by the branded NinerAlert prefix alone.
  12. present: Recipients can see NinerAlert as the named product issuing the robbery notice.
  13. present: No agency office is spelled out, yet a branded NinerAlert tag still counts as Source.
  14. present: The colon-terminated NinerAlert label is a sender signature at the start.
  15. present: This pass treats NinerAlert as a sufficient branded identifier of the originator.
  16. present: Source is the NinerAlert string, a campus warning brand rather than an unnamed blast.
  17. present: The header NinerAlert tells readers which alert system is speaking.
  18. present: Identification of the sender rests on NinerAlert as a branded signature.
  19. present: The product title NinerAlert names the issuing channel.
  20. present: Opening with NinerAlert is enough to mark the campus authority as the source.
  21. present: The text does not hide origin: NinerAlert is the first token readers see.
  22. present: A branded signature NinerAlert satisfies Source without a person or department name.
  23. present: NinerAlert is the house alert name and therefore the who of the message.
  24. present: Source present: the lead brand NinerAlert identifies the notifying system.
  25. present: The sending authority is the NinerAlert product named before the robbery sentence.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  H 25/25 majority present. Armed robbery is a specific named threat, not a generic incident or situation.

  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: Armed robbery is a specific named threat, not a generic incident or situation.
  2. present: The hazard is an armed robbery in Lot 25, a concrete crime type.
  3. present: Robbery names the what of the emergency rather than emergency alone.
  4. present: Armed robbery is listed-class hazard language, more specific than incident.
  5. present: The opening clause names the threat as an armed robbery.
  6. present: Hazard present because armed robbery is a specific offense, not situation.
  7. present: The text states what happened: an armed robbery, which is a named crime.
  8. present: A robbery with a weapon is a specific threat type under the Hazard element.
  9. present: Armed robbery reported is the named hazard, not a vague police activity line.
  10. present: The what is armed robbery, a specific crime rather than an unspecified emergency.
  11. present: Hazard is the armed robbery itself, named in the first sentence.
  12. present: The notice specifies robbery, and armed makes the crime type still more precise.
  13. present: This pass codes H present because armed robbery is a named threat.
  14. present: Generic words such as incident never appear as the only threat label; armed robbery does.
  15. present: The crime named is armed robbery, which satisfies the specific-threat test.
  16. present: Readers are told the threat is an armed robbery, not merely an event.
  17. present: H counts a named robbery hazard, and armed robbery is that name.
  18. present: The first sentence after the brand states armed robbery as the emergency.
  19. present: Specific threat: armed robbery, not a placeholder word like situation.
  20. present: The product names a robbery, which the rubric treats as a qualifying hazard.
  21. present: Armed robbery is the concrete what, distinct from a generic campus notice.
  22. present: Hazard is present as the reported armed robbery, a defined crime.
  23. present: Naming armed robbery gives a specific threat rather than emergency alone.
  24. present: The lead reports an armed robbery, which is a specific named hazard.
  25. present: What the threat is: an armed robbery involving a fleeing suspect in a Kia.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  L 25/25 majority present. Lot 25, campus, and University City Blvd name places for the robbery and flight path.

  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: Lot 25 names a parking lot as the place of the robbery.
  2. present: The robbery is located in Lot 25, a named campus lot.
  3. present: Place is Lot 25, plus campus and University City Blvd as further where cues.
  4. present: University City Blvd is a named street on the suspect's leaving path.
  5. present: Leaving campus uses campus, which the Location element counts.
  6. present: Location present: Lot 25 is a named lot, not an unnamed scene.
  7. present: The text says where: Lot 25, then towards University City Blvd.
  8. present: A parking lot number, Lot 25, is a named place.
  9. present: Campus in leaving campus is an accepted where under the rubric.
  10. present: The flight path towards University City Blvd supplies a street name.
  11. present: Three place cues appear: Lot 25, campus, and University City Blvd.
  12. present: Where the crime was reported is Lot 25.
  13. present: Location is met by the lot identifier Lot 25 alone.
  14. present: University City Blvd names a boulevard the suspect was seen heading toward.
  15. present: The suspect is seen leaving campus, which locates the event relative to campus.
  16. present: Lot 25 is a mapped parking site, a qualifying location.
  17. present: The where clause is in Lot 25, a specific lot number.
  18. present: Street-level place is University City Blvd in the second sentence.
  19. present: Named place Lot 25 plus the campus token satisfy Location.
  20. present: Readers are told the robbery was in Lot 25 and the car left toward University City Blvd.
  21. present: Location present because a lot, campus, and a boulevard are all places.
  22. present: The scene is Lot 25, a campus parking lot named in the first sentence.
  23. present: Towards University City Blvd is a directional street location.
  24. present: The rubric accepts campus, and that word appears in leaving campus.
  25. present: Place names in the body are Lot 25, campus, and University City Blvd.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  G 0/25. More in email points to another message and is not a protective instruction to recipients.

  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. absent: More in email points to another channel and is not a protective instruction.
  2. absent: No shelter, avoid, lock, or call-911 order appears for recipients.
  3. absent: The text reports the robbery and vehicle but never tells readers what to do.
  4. absent: More in email is a pointer, not monitor-for-updates as an imperative.
  5. absent: Guidance is absent: there is no instruction to avoid Lot 25 or stay inside.
  6. absent: Suspect seen leaving is status about the offender, not recipient guidance.
  7. absent: Recipients are not told to run, hide, lock doors, or stay away.
  8. absent: The last clause More in email does not tell anyone to take a protective action.
  9. absent: Describing a blue Kia Optima is a suspect description, not guidance.
  10. absent: This pass finds no second-person protective order in the three sentences.
  11. absent: Call 911, avoid the area, and similar rubric examples are all missing.
  12. absent: Guidance fails because the product only reports facts and defers to email.
  13. absent: More in email is informational, not an order to monitor or seek shelter.
  14. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a protective instruction to the audience.
  15. absent: The notice does not tell recipients to lock doors, leave, or shelter.
  16. absent: Reporting a leaving suspect is not telling the reader how to protect themselves.
  17. absent: No imperative verb directed at the audience appears, including monitor.
  18. absent: Email is named as a place for more detail, which is not recipient guidance.
  19. absent: The rubric needs an instruction to the reader, and this text has none.
  20. absent: Guidance is 0 because the body is a crime report plus a more-info tag.
  21. absent: Avoid the area is never written, nor is any other protective step.
  22. absent: Readers learn a vehicle description, not what protective action to take.
  23. absent: More in email is not equivalent to monitor for updates as an instruction.
  24. absent: The product never orders the community to stay away from Lot 25.
  25. absent: Absent: no shelter, evacuate, lock, call, or monitor command is present.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  T 0/25. The notice contains no date, clock, until, or now. 2019 is the vehicle model year.

  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 date, clock, until, or now appears in the notice.
  2. absent: Reported is past-tense narration, not a clock time or recency word.
  3. absent: 2019 is the Kia model year, not an incident date.
  4. absent: The text never names a day, month, or hour for the robbery.
  5. absent: Leaving campus describes movement, not a Time cue such as now.
  6. absent: More in email carries no when information.
  7. absent: Time is absent: there is no today, immediately, as of, or ongoing.
  8. absent: NinerAlert is a brand, not a timestamp.
  9. absent: This pass finds no 9:52-style clock and no calendar date.
  10. absent: Until further notice and similar duration phrases are missing.
  11. absent: Recency is implied by a live chase, but the rubric needs date, clock, until, or now.
  12. absent: The double space after NinerAlert is formatting, not a time stamp.
  13. absent: Lot 25 and University City Blvd are places, not times.
  14. absent: Armed robbery reported does not say when it was reported.
  15. absent: No AM, PM, or numbered clock appears anywhere in the body.
  16. absent: Time fails because the three sentences contain no when cue from the rubric list.
  17. absent: Immediately is also absent from the notice.
  18. absent: The vehicle year 2019 cannot be read as the date of the crime.
  19. absent: Seen leaving is observational language without a clock.
  20. absent: This product has no as of line and no today marker.
  21. absent: Clock time is missing, and no until bound is given either.
  22. absent: The text does not say now, so recency is not stated.
  23. absent: Date, clock, now, immediately, today, as of, until, and ongoing are all absent.
  24. absent: Time is 0 because nothing in the wording answers when.
  25. absent: Without a date or clock, Time is absent even though the event is described as reported.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  I 0/25. Armed robbery is the hazard name, and no injury, dangerous, or other stated-harm clause is added.

  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: Armed robbery is the hazard name, and no extra harm or injury wording appears.
  2. absent: Armed is part of the crime label, not a separate severity clause.
  3. absent: Nobody is said to be wounded, killed, or in danger beyond the robbery name.
  4. absent: The Kia description is not a statement of harm to people or property.
  5. absent: Impact is absent because naming the hazard alone does not satisfy I.
  6. absent: No dangerous, deadly, or serious-threat sentence is added.
  7. absent: Leaving campus is flight information, not stated consequence.
  8. absent: More in email adds no severity language.
  9. absent: This pass finds no could be deadly or may cause injury phrasing.
  10. absent: Robbery names the crime; it does not state what it could do beyond that name.
  11. absent: The rubric bars counting the hazard name alone as impact.
  12. absent: There is no serious or continuing threat sentence here.
  13. absent: I is 0 because the hazard name stands alone with no extra harm language.
  14. absent: Armed robbery without injury, victim, or deadly wording is H, not I.
  15. absent: No property damage or personal injury is described.
  16. absent: Impact fails: the text never says the event is life-threatening or damaging.
  17. absent: Suspect seen leaving does not convey consequence or severity.
  18. absent: The notice does not say anyone was hurt or that the community is at risk.
  19. absent: Stated harm is required beyond the hazard name, and only the hazard name is here.
  20. absent: Weaponized crime type is still the hazard label, not an impact clause.
  21. absent: Lot 25 and the boulevard are location, not impact.
  22. absent: No evacuate for your safety or similar severity cue is present.
  23. absent: Impact is the stated harm, and this short form states none.
  24. absent: The product reports a robbery without adding dangerous or injury language.
  25. absent: I stays absent: no consequence beyond the armed-robbery name is conveyed.