Weather-related operations update for campuses

To check this alert, Claude Opus 5 (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, 25 of 25. The first words, "University of Washington Police have received reports," name the issuing agency, and that department's own callback number closes the 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: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  2. present: The opening line attributes the notice to "University of Washington Police", a named agency.
  3. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports," naming the issuing agency.
  4. present: The message opens with "University of Washington Police," identifying the issuing agency.
  5. present: The message opens with "University of Washington Police", clearly naming the issuing authority.
  6. present: The opening words "University of Washington Police have received reports" identify the issuing agency.
  7. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  8. present: The message opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  9. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  10. present: It opens by naming the issuing authority, "University of Washington Police".
  11. present: The opening words "University of Washington Police have received reports" identify the issuing agency.
  12. present: The opening line attributes the notice to "University of Washington Police", the issuing authority.
  13. present: The text opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  14. present: It opens by naming the issuing agency, "University of Washington Police have received reports".
  15. present: The opening words "University of Washington Police have received reports" identify the issuing law enforcement agency.
  16. present: The message opens with "University of Washington Police", naming the issuing law enforcement agency.
  17. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  18. present: The alert opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  19. present: The opening words "University of Washington Police have received reports" name the issuing law enforcement agency.
  20. present: The alert opens with "University of Washington Police" as the reporting authority and gives the UWPD phone number.
  21. present: The opening line attributes the notice to "University of Washington Police", a named campus agency.
  22. present: The opening words "University of Washington Police have received reports" name the issuing agency.
  23. present: The text opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  24. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police have received reports", naming the issuing agency.
  25. present: It opens with "University of Washington Police", the issuing authority, and gives that department's own callback number.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The threat is a specific fraud: a caller spoofing the police main office who "has threatened legal action if money is not provided. This is a scam."

  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: The threat is named specifically: an impersonation phone "scam" demanding money.
  2. present: The threat is specified as a phone scam where a caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided".
  3. present: The threat is a named phone scam where a caller "threatened legal action if money is not provided."
  4. present: The threat is named plainly: a phone impersonation scam demanding money, "This is a scam."
  5. present: It names a specific threat, a phone scam where "The caller has threatened legal action if money is not provided".
  6. present: It names a specific threat: a phone impersonation scam demanding money under threat of legal action.
  7. present: The threat is named as a phone scam where a caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided".
  8. present: The threat is specifically named as a phone scam: "The caller has threatened legal action if money is not provided. This is a scam."
  9. present: The threat is named precisely: callers spoofing UW police who demand money, and "This is a scam."
  10. present: The threat is specific: a phone scam by a caller spoofing UW police and demanding money.
  11. present: It specifies a phone impersonation scam: "The caller has threatened legal action if money is not provided. This is a scam."
  12. present: The threat is named precisely: a phone scam where "The caller has threatened legal action if money is not provided."
  13. present: It identifies a specific threat, an impersonation phone "scam" demanding money under threat of legal action.
  14. present: The threat is a specific phone scam impersonating police and demanding money, "This is a scam".
  15. present: It names a specific threat: a phone scam where "The caller has threatened legal action if money is not provided."
  16. present: It identifies a specific threat, a phone scam spoofing UW police and demanding money under threat of legal action.
  17. present: The threat is named specifically: a phone scam impersonating UW police and demanding money.
  18. present: It identifies an impersonation phone scam demanding money, a specific fraud threat.
  19. present: It identifies a specific threat: fraudulent callers spoofing UW police who demand money, and says plainly "This is a scam".
  20. present: It identifies a specific threat, a phone scam spoofing UWPD and "threatened legal action if money is not provided".
  21. present: The threat is named precisely: impostor callers spoofing the police number demanding money, and "This is a scam".
  22. present: The threat is specified as a phone scam: a caller "threatened legal action if money is not provided. This is a scam."
  23. present: It names a specific threat, a phone scam spoofing UW police and demanding money under threat of legal action.
  24. present: The threat is named plainly: callers spoofing UW police demand money, and "This is a scam."
  25. present: The threat is named plainly: fraudulent calls spoofing UW police, and "This is a scam."
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25. The contact happens entirely by telephone, and no building, street, campus or area appears anywhere; the only numbers given are phone numbers.

  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 place is given: the calls reach students anywhere, and no building, street or campus area is named.
  2. absent: No campus, building, street or area is given; only a spoofed phone number and a callback number appear.
  3. absent: No building, street or campus area is given: only a phone number is referenced.
  4. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; the contact happens by phone with no place named.
  5. absent: No campus, building or street is given; the scam reaches students by phone with no stated place.
  6. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a phone number and an office are referenced.
  7. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a spoofed phone number is described.
  8. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a phone number spoofing the police main office is described.
  9. absent: No campus, building or street is given; the contact happens by telephone with no place identified.
  10. absent: No campus, building or street is given; only a phone number and office are referenced.
  11. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a phone number is referenced as the spoofed origin.
  12. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a phone number appears.
  13. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only that students received calls.
  14. absent: No place is given: the calls reach students anywhere, and no building, street or campus area is named.
  15. absent: No campus place, street, or area is given; the threat arrives by telephone with no geographic reference.
  16. absent: No place is given: the calls target students generally with no building, street or campus area named.
  17. absent: No place is given, only a phone number; the message never says where on campus or in what area.
  18. absent: No building, street, campus area or place is mentioned anywhere in the message.
  19. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; the scam reaches students by phone rather than at a place.
  20. absent: No building, street, campus or area is given; only a phone number is referenced, not a place.
  21. absent: No place is given; the message concerns phone calls to students and names only a phone line, not a location.
  22. absent: No place is given for the threat; the only geography is the police main office the caller spoofs.
  23. absent: No building, street, campus area or place is given; the scam arrives by telephone.
  24. absent: No building, street or campus area is given; only a phone number, not a place where the hazard sits.
  25. absent: No building, street, area or campus is named; only a phone number is given as a point of contact.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Readers are told plainly, "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller," and to call 206-685-8973.

  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: It directs recipients: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the listed number.
  2. present: It instructs readers plainly: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller."
  3. present: Clear instruction: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and call the non-emergency line.
  4. present: Recipients are told "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the non emergency number.
  5. present: It directs recipients to "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  6. present: Recipients are told "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  7. present: Recipients are told "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the non-emergency line.
  8. present: It instructs recipients plainly: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller."
  9. present: Clear protective instruction: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value."
  10. present: Clear instructions: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and call the non-emergency line.
  11. present: Clear instructions follow: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and call the non-emergency line.
  12. present: It instructs plainly: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller."
  13. present: It instructs readers, "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the non-emergency number.
  14. present: It instructs recipients, "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  15. present: It gives clear protective instructions: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and call the listed number.
  16. present: It directs recipients not to "provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value" and to call a listed number.
  17. present: It instructs "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the non emergency line.
  18. present: It directs recipients: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  19. present: Recipients are told "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the police non-emergency number.
  20. present: It gives clear protective instruction: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  21. present: It instructs recipients plainly: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller".
  22. present: Clear instruction: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller."
  23. present: It instructs readers plainly: "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value".
  24. present: It instructs "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards" and to call the non-emergency line.
  25. present: It instructs "Do not provide personal information, money, gift cards or anything of value to the caller."
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25. No clock time, date, or recency wording such as "today" or "now" appears, so the advisory gives no sense of when the calls occurred.

  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 clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "today" appears anywhere.
  2. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency phrase such as "now" or "today" anywhere in the text.
  3. absent: No clock time, date or recency word such as "now" appears anywhere.
  4. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today anywhere in the text.
  5. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears anywhere in the text.
  6. absent: Nothing conveys timing or recency: no clock time, date, or word like now or ongoing.
  7. absent: The text gives no clock time, date, or word signaling recency such as "now".
  8. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears anywhere in the text.
  9. absent: Nothing conveys when this is happening, no clock time, date, or word like now or ongoing.
  10. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" appears anywhere in the text.
  11. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today anywhere in the text.
  12. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears anywhere.
  13. absent: No clock time, date or recency cue such as "now" or "today" appears anywhere.
  14. absent: Nothing fixes timing: no clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears.
  15. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "today" appears anywhere in the text.
  16. absent: The text has no clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "today".
  17. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "today" appears anywhere.
  18. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "today".
  19. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "ongoing" anywhere in the text.
  20. absent: There is no clock time, date, or recency word such as now, today or ongoing.
  21. absent: The text gives no clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "today".
  22. absent: Nothing conveys recency: no clock time, date, or words like now or ongoing.
  23. absent: Nothing dates the reports or signals recency such as "now" or "today".
  24. absent: Nothing conveys when this is happening: no clock time, date, or word like now or ongoing.
  25. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" or "today" appears anywhere in the message.
• Impactpresent22/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 22 of 25. The stated consequence is financial loss, money or "gift cards or anything of value" surrendered under a threatened "legal action." Three reads wanted harm spelled out more explicitly.

  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: The consequence is spelled out: callers threaten "legal action if money is not provided", meaning financial loss.
  2. present: The consequence is conveyed: victims stand to lose money, gift cards "or anything of value" to the caller.
  3. present: The stated consequence is loss of money or personal information to a fraudulent caller.
  4. present: It conveys the harm at stake: callers threaten "legal action if money is not provided," implying financial loss.
  5. present: The consequence is conveyed, loss of money or valuables to a caller impersonating police.
  6. absent: It labels the calls a scam but never states what loss or harm could result.
  7. present: The loss framing, money and gift cards extorted "or anything of value", conveys the harm the scam can cause.
  8. present: The implied consequence is loss of money or personal information to a caller demanding payment under threat of legal action.
  9. present: It says the caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided", conveying financial and legal harm.
  10. present: It conveys harm by noting the caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided", a financial and legal risk.
  11. present: The harm is spelled out as financial loss plus threatened legal action against the person called.
  12. present: The consequence is loss of money or valuables extracted under a threat of legal action.
  13. present: It conveys the loss at stake: callers threaten "legal action if money is not provided" and seek things of value.
  14. absent: It never says what the scam could cost or do to a victim beyond describing the demand.
  15. present: The stated consequence is financial loss through extortion, with callers demanding money under threat of legal action.
  16. present: It strongly implies loss of money or personal data to a fraudulent caller demanding payment.
  17. present: It conveys the harm at stake: callers threaten "legal action if money is not provided", risking financial loss.
  18. present: The consequence is stated: the caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided".
  19. present: It conveys the harm at stake: the caller "has threatened legal action if money is not provided", meaning financial loss.
  20. present: The implied harm is concrete: victims stand to lose money or valuables to the caller's coercion.
  21. present: It describes the harm at stake, callers who have "threatened legal action if money is not provided", meaning financial loss.
  22. present: The implied harm is loss of "money, gift cards or anything of value" and personal information to a fraudster.
  23. present: The stated consequence is losing money or personal information to a caller who "has threatened legal action".
  24. present: It conveys loss: the caller "threatened legal action if money is not provided", implying financial harm to targets.
  25. absent: It does not spell out the harm or how serious the loss could be, only how the scam operates.