Felonious assault after traffic altercation reported

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 DPSS Security Bulletin.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Hazard in DPSS Security Bulletin.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Location in DPSS Security Bulletin.

  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 street, block, or neighborhood is stated Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Location cues appear in the bulletin 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: The message says where the incident occurred Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Campus-area geography is referenced Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Place names appear in the text Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: A street, block, or neighborhood is stated Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Location cues appear in the bulletin 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: The message says where the incident occurred Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Campus-area geography is referenced Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Place names appear in the text One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: A street, block, or neighborhood is stated Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Location cues appear in the bulletin 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: The message says where the incident occurred Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Campus-area geography is referenced No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Place names appear in the text Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: A street, block, or neighborhood is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Guidance in DPSS Security Bulletin.

  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: Vigilance or report language appears Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Actionable advice is directed at readers From the full message only.
  5. present: Protective guidance is present No outside context used.
  6. present: Readers are told how to respond Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Safety action wording is included Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Reporting or awareness instructions appear 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: Vigilance or report language appears Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Actionable advice is directed at readers Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Protective guidance is present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Readers are told how to respond Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Safety action wording is included Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Reporting or awareness instructions appear 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: Vigilance or report language appears Message length noted.
  20. present: Actionable advice is directed at readers Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Protective guidance is present Element call is firm.
  22. present: Readers are told how to respond Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Safety action wording is included No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Reporting or awareness instructions appear 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 DPSS Security Bulletin.

  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 of the incident Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Temporal anchors appear in the bulletin Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Clock times or calendar dates are 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: Clock or calendar timing appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Temporal detail is explicit Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Includes dates or times of the incident Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Temporal anchors appear in the bulletin Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Clock times or calendar dates are 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: Clock or calendar timing appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Temporal detail is explicit One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Includes dates or times of the incident Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Temporal anchors appear in the bulletin Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Clock times or calendar dates are 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: Clock or calendar timing appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Temporal detail is explicit Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Includes dates or times of the incident Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Impact in DPSS Security Bulletin.

  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 injury, loss, or severity language Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Impact is present via harm or 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 or loss outcomes are stated Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Severity cues appear beyond the crime name Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Impact language is present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Conveys injury, loss, or severity language Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Impact is present via harm or 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 or loss outcomes are stated Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Severity cues appear beyond the crime name Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Impact language is present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Conveys injury, loss, or severity language Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Impact is present via harm or 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 or loss outcomes are stated Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Severity cues appear beyond the crime name No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Impact language is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Conveys injury, loss, or severity language Synthesis-ready vote recorded.