Campus Safety phone service interruption; use 911

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

  Campus Safety is the named institutional source.

  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: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. From the full message only.
  5. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. No outside context used.
  6. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Clear institutional sender cue.
  12. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Source attribution is explicit.
  13. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Sender language is unambiguous.
  14. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Reads as official campus channel.
  15. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  16. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Judged present from named agency.
  17. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Agency or office is named.
  18. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Public safety sender is clear.
  19. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Official notice framing supports source.
  20. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Source element satisfies the bar.
  21. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  22. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  23. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Source present in opening framing.
  24. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Institutional voice is obvious.
  25. present: Campus Safety is the named institutional source. Final independent coding concurs.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard.

  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: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Hazard is specifically named.
  2. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. The danger is explicit in text.
  3. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Crime or condition is identified.
  4. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Named incident type is the hazard.
  5. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Clear what recipients should fear.
  6. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Hazard language is concrete.
  7. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Not merely a generic notice.
  8. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Incident type is stated outright.
  9. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Risk is identified by name.
  10. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Threat type is readable on face.
  11. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Hazard element meets the bar.
  12. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Confirmed from full alert wording.
  13. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Independent pass finds hazard present.
  14. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Event described is the hazard.
  15. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. No need for outside knowledge.
  16. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Re-read supports hazard present.
  17. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Specific harm pathway is stated.
  18. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Alert centers on a named problem.
  19. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Hazard coding is straightforward.
  20. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Wording alone decides this.
  21. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Same call on second review.
  22. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Hazard present by majority test.
  23. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Distinct from mere logistics.
  24. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Public-warning hazard test passed.
  25. present: Phone service interruption to Campus Safety lines is the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No specific campus map location; service-area only.

  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. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. No specific place is named.
  2. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Only community-wide scope appears.
  3. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Lacks a usable geographic anchor.
  4. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. No street, building, or block given.
  5. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Location stays at whole-campus level.
  6. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Recipients cannot pinpoint a scene.
  7. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Absent under the location rubric.
  8. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Independent re-read finds no place.
  9. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. No map-level detail in the text.
  10. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Location element fails the bar.
  11. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Service-area language is not a site.
  12. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Not spatially specific enough.
  13. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Place is not operationally usable.
  14. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Coding stays absent for location.
  15. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Same absence on second look.
  16. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Wording alone shows no location.
  17. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. No address or named lot appears.
  18. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Geographic cue is missing.
  19. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Location judged not present.
  20. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Pass finds location absent.
  21. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. No scene coordinates in prose.
  22. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Campus-wide only is insufficient.
  23. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Location test not satisfied.
  24. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Strict rubric keeps location off.
  25. absent: No specific campus map location; service-area only. Final independent coding concurs.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given.

  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: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Protective action is stated.
  2. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Recipients are told what to do.
  3. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Clear call-to-action guidance.
  4. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Guidance is actionable on its face.
  5. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Safety steps are listed or implied as directives.
  6. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Report/call instructions count as guidance.
  7. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Avoidance or vigilance language is present.
  8. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Guidance element meets the bar.
  9. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Independent re-read agrees.
  10. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Instructional language is explicit.
  11. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Readers know how to respond.
  12. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Protective guidance is concrete.
  13. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Action cues are in the alert.
  14. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Same conclusion on second look.
  15. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Guidance coded from wording alone.
  16. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. No outside context required.
  17. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Directive phrasing is clear.
  18. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Guidance present under the rubric.
  19. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Pass finds guidance present.
  20. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Public-warning guidance test passed.
  21. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Recipients get do/don't instructions.
  22. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Contact numbers support guidance.
  23. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Wording alone settles guidance.
  24. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Strict application still finds guidance.
  25. present: Use 911 for emergencies; alternate non-emergency number given. Final independent coding concurs.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present.

  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: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time or date cue is usable.
  2. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Clock or calendar detail is present.
  3. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Timing of the event is stated.
  4. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time window is specific enough.
  5. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Date stamp supports time present.
  6. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Independent re-read agrees.
  7. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time element meets the bar.
  8. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Not merely undated prose.
  9. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Temporal anchor is in the text.
  10. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Recipients can place when it happened.
  11. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time coding is straightforward.
  12. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Same judgment on second look.
  13. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Wording alone settles time.
  14. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Pass finds time present.
  15. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Explicit hour or day appears.
  16. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Temporal detail is operational.
  17. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time present under the rubric.
  18. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. No outside context required.
  19. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Date/time language is decisive.
  20. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Calendar cue is clear.
  21. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Timing is not vague.
  22. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Time test satisfied.
  23. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Re-checked against full text.
  24. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Strict rubric still finds time.
  25. present: Update timestamp Oct. 17, 6:30 p.m. is present. Final independent coding concurs.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact.

  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: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Impact or status is described.
  2. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Consequences or outcome appear.
  3. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Severity or scope is stated.
  4. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Harm already realized is noted.
  5. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Operational impact is explicit.
  6. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Status language supports impact.
  7. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Impact element meets the bar.
  8. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Independent re-read agrees.
  9. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Effects on people or systems appear.
  10. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Not hazard alone; impact is separate.
  11. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Same conclusion on second look.
  12. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Wording alone settles impact.
  13. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Pass finds impact present.
  14. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Outcome or threat-level is clear.
  15. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Impact coded from wording alone.
  16. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. No outside context required.
  17. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Public-warning impact test passed.
  18. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Scope of disruption is given.
  19. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Status update implies impact.
  20. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Realized or potential harm is named.
  21. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Impact language is concrete.
  22. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Re-checked against full alert.
  23. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Strict rubric still finds impact.
  24. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Impact present under majority logic.
  25. present: Restored status and outage scope describe operational impact. Final independent coding concurs.