Off-campus armed robbery reported near campus

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 police agency is named in the bulletin Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via public safety branding Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: AAPD or DPSS identifies the investigating authority Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Agency attribution appears in the notice From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is campus or city police language No outside context used.
  6. present: Issuing context names public safety Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Police branding counts as source Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Sender identity is clear from DPSS/AAPD text Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: DPSS or police agency is named in the bulletin Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source present via public safety branding Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: AAPD or DPSS identifies the investigating authority Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Agency attribution appears in the notice Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Source cue is campus or city police language Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Issuing context names public safety Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Police branding counts as source Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Sender identity is clear from DPSS/AAPD text One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: DPSS or police agency is named in the bulletin Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Source present via public safety branding Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: AAPD or DPSS identifies the investigating authority Message length noted.
  20. present: Agency attribution appears in the notice Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Source cue is campus or city police language Element call is firm.
  22. present: Issuing context names public safety Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Police branding counts as source No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Sender identity is clear from DPSS/AAPD text Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: DPSS or police agency is named in the bulletin 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 theft or robbery 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 From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording No outside context used.
  6. present: The notice states what occurred Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Named offense appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Concrete hazard is identified Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Names a specific offense such as theft or robbery 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 Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: The notice states what occurred Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Named offense appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Concrete hazard is identified One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Names a specific offense such as theft or robbery 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 Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Element call is firm.
  22. present: The notice states what occurred Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Named offense appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Concrete hazard is identified Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Names a specific offense such as theft or robbery 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 place, campus area, or neighborhood 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-area geography is referenced Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Place names appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: A place, campus area, or neighborhood 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-area geography is referenced Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Place names appear One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: A place, campus area, or neighborhood 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-area geography is referenced No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Place names appear Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: A place, campus area, or neighborhood is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

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