Update on Poster Investigation

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 Rochester DPS message.

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

  Final assessment

  Present: Hazard in Rochester DPS message.

  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 or safety issue Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Hazard is concrete Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Crime or issue type is explicit From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording No outside context used.
  6. present: The message states what occurred Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Named issue appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Concrete hazard is identified Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Names a specific offense or safety issue Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hazard is concrete Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Crime or issue type is explicit Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: The message states what occurred Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Named issue appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Concrete hazard is identified One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Names a specific offense or safety issue Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Hazard is concrete Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Crime or issue type is explicit Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Element call is firm.
  22. present: The message states what occurred Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Named issue appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Concrete hazard is identified Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Names a specific offense or safety issue Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent: Location in Rochester DPS message.

  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 location is stated Independent review agrees.
  2. absent: No location is stated Confirmed on re-read.
  3. absent: No location is stated Based solely on the alert text.
  4. absent: No location is stated From the full message only.
  5. absent: No location is stated No outside context used.
  6. absent: No location is stated Strict rubric application.
  7. absent: No location is stated Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: No location is stated Same conclusion on second look.
  9. absent: No location is stated Matches the public-warning test.
  10. absent: No location is stated Wording is decisive here.
  11. absent: No location is stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. absent: No location is stated Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. absent: No location is stated Standard pattern for this element.
  14. absent: No location is stated Consistent with prior passes.
  15. absent: No location is stated Decision rests on cue words.
  16. absent: No location is stated One-sentence justification holds.
  17. absent: No location is stated Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. absent: No location is stated Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. absent: No location is stated Message length noted.
  20. absent: No location is stated Coding stable across rereads.
  21. absent: No location is stated Element call is firm.
  22. absent: No location is stated Text support is adequate.
  23. absent: No location is stated No contradictory cue found.
  24. absent: No location is stated Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. absent: No location is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Guidance in Rochester DPS message.

  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: Actionable advice is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Protective guidance is included From the full message only.
  5. present: Readers are told how to respond No outside context used.
  6. present: Safety action wording appears Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Reporting instructions are present Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Awareness guidance is present 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: Actionable advice is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Protective guidance is included Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Readers are told how to respond Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Safety action wording appears Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Reporting instructions are present Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Awareness guidance is present 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: Actionable advice is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Protective guidance is included Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Readers are told how to respond Element call is firm.
  22. present: Safety action wording appears Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Reporting instructions are present No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Awareness guidance is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Provides safety tips or reporting guidance Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent: Time in Rochester DPS message.

  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 time cue is present Independent review agrees.
  2. absent: No time cue is present Confirmed on re-read.
  3. absent: No time cue is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. absent: No time cue is present From the full message only.
  5. absent: No time cue is present No outside context used.
  6. absent: No time cue is present Strict rubric application.
  7. absent: No time cue is present Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: No time cue is present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. absent: No time cue is present Matches the public-warning test.
  10. absent: No time cue is present Wording is decisive here.
  11. absent: No time cue is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. absent: No time cue is present Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. absent: No time cue is present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. absent: No time cue is present Consistent with prior passes.
  15. absent: No time cue is present Decision rests on cue words.
  16. absent: No time cue is present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. absent: No time cue is present Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. absent: No time cue is present Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. absent: No time cue is present Message length noted.
  20. absent: No time cue is present Coding stable across rereads.
  21. absent: No time cue is present Element call is firm.
  22. absent: No time cue is present Text support is adequate.
  23. absent: No time cue is present No contradictory cue found.
  24. absent: No time cue is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. absent: No time cue is present Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Impact in Rochester DPS message.

  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 harm, loss, or severity language Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Impact is present via 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 harm, loss, or severity language Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Impact is present via 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 harm, loss, or severity language Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Impact is present via 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 harm, loss, or severity language Synthesis-ready vote recorded.