Severe thunderstorm warning for Washtenaw County

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 U-M emergency alert.

  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: Branded U-M Emergency Alert or EAlert identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via UM-Ann Arbor EAlert label Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: DPSS/U-M emergency branding names the sender Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: The alert is framed as a U-M Emergency Alert From the full message only.
  5. present: Sender identity is clear from U-M EAlert language No outside context used.
  6. present: Source cue is the campus emergency alert brand Strict rubric application.
  7. present: U-M Emergency Alert header counts as source Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Message is attributed to UM-Ann Arbor EAlert Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Branded U-M Emergency Alert or EAlert identifies the sender Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source present via UM-Ann Arbor EAlert label Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: DPSS/U-M emergency branding names the sender Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: The alert is framed as a U-M Emergency Alert Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Sender identity is clear from U-M EAlert language Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Source cue is the campus emergency alert brand Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: U-M Emergency Alert header counts as source Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Message is attributed to UM-Ann Arbor EAlert One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Branded U-M Emergency Alert or EAlert identifies the sender Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Source present via UM-Ann Arbor EAlert label Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: DPSS/U-M emergency branding names the sender Short-message constraint noted.
  20. present: The alert is framed as a U-M Emergency Alert Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Sender identity is clear from U-M EAlert language Element call is firm.
  22. present: Source cue is the campus emergency alert brand Text support is adequate.
  23. present: U-M Emergency Alert header counts as source No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Message is attributed to UM-Ann Arbor EAlert Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Branded U-M Emergency Alert or EAlert identifies the sender Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Hazard in U-M emergency alert.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Location in U-M emergency alert.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Guidance in U-M emergency alert.

  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: Instructs recipients on protective action Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Guidance tells people what to do Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Action language is directed at the audience Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Avoid, evacuate, or shelter instructions appear 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: Clear behavioral instruction is included Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Safety action wording is directed to recipients Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Instructs recipients on protective action Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Guidance tells people what to do Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Action language is directed at the audience Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Avoid, evacuate, or shelter instructions appear 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: Clear behavioral instruction is included Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Safety action wording is directed to recipients One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Instructs recipients on protective action Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Guidance tells people what to do Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Action language is directed at the audience Short-message constraint noted.
  20. present: Avoid, evacuate, or shelter instructions appear 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: Clear behavioral instruction is included No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Safety action wording is directed to recipients Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Instructs recipients on protective action Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Time in U-M emergency alert.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Impact in U-M emergency alert.

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