Attempted armed robbery west of campus

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 message is posted as a UW Alert and points readers back to "alert.uw.edu", and it attributes the response to "Seattle Police officers are in the area."

  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: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify the issuing authority behind this notice.
  2. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" signature identify the issuing and responding authorities.
  3. present: Seattle Police are named as investigating and the message points to "alert.uw.edu", identifying the issuing authority.
  4. present: Both "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" branded alert address identify the issuing and responding authorities.
  5. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify the issuing authority behind the message.
  6. present: "Seattle Police" is named as investigating and the post signs off with "Info: alert.uw.edu", a branded sender tag.
  7. present: "Seattle Police investigation is still ongoing" names the responding agency, and the alert points to alert.uw.edu as its own channel.
  8. present: Seattle Police are named as investigating and the post signs off with the alert address alert.uw.edu.
  9. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" branded reference identify the issuing authority behind the message.
  10. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" branded reference identify the issuing and responding authority.
  11. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" branded link both identify the issuing authority behind this post.
  12. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify the issuing authority behind the post.
  13. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify the issuing authority behind the message.
  14. present: Seattle Police are named as the investigating agency, and the post points readers to alert.uw.edu.
  15. present: "Seattle Police officers are in the area" plus the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify the issuing and responding authorities.
  16. present: Seattle Police is named as the investigating authority and the message points to alert.uw.edu as its own channel.
  17. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sender link identify the issuing authority behind the message.
  18. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sender pointer identify both the investigating agency and the issuing alert system.
  19. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" branded link identify the issuing and responding authorities.
  20. present: Seattle Police is named as the investigating agency and the message points to "alert.uw.edu" as its own channel.
  21. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" sign off identify both the responding agency and the sending alert system.
  22. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" reference identify both the responding agency and the issuing alert system.
  23. present: "Seattle Police investigation is still ongoing" names the responding agency, and the sign off points to alert.uw.edu.
  24. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" pointer identify the responding agency and the alerting service.
  25. present: "Seattle Police" and the "alert.uw.edu" pointer identify the responding agency and the issuing alert system.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The threat is named outright in "Attempted armed robbery at business" and sharpened by "The suspect may have a gun" while still unfound.

  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: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  2. present: "Attempted armed robbery" names a specific criminal threat rather than a vague incident.
  3. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  4. present: The text names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  5. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  6. present: The text names "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  7. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" with a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  8. present: The text names an attempted armed robbery by a suspect who may have a gun.
  9. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  10. present: "Attempted armed robbery" plus "may have a gun" names a specific threat, not a vague incident.
  11. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  12. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  13. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" with a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  14. present: The text names an attempted armed robbery by a suspect who may have a gun.
  15. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and says the suspect "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  16. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" with a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  17. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  18. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  19. present: "Attempted armed robbery" by a suspect who "may have a gun" names a specific threat.
  20. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  21. present: "Attempted armed robbery at business" names a specific criminal threat rather than a vague incident.
  22. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and says the suspect "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  23. present: It names an "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  24. present: It names "Attempted armed robbery" and a suspect who "may have a gun", a specific threat.
  25. present: "Attempted armed robbery" names a specific criminal threat, not a vague incident word.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The alert twice fixes the scene to "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a specific address range beside the Seattle campus.

  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: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street location.
  2. present: It pins the event to "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St." and the business there.
  3. present: The location is given precisely as the "1400 block of NE 42nd St."
  4. present: It places the incident at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a concrete street location.
  5. present: The "1400 block of NE 42nd St." pins the incident to a precise street location.
  6. present: It places the event at "a business located at the 1400 block of NE 42nd St."
  7. present: The text places the incident at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a street address.
  8. present: It gives the 1400 block of NE 42nd St. as the business location.
  9. present: It places the event at a "business located at the 1400 block of NE 42nd St."
  10. present: It pins the location to "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St." where the business was entered.
  11. present: The location is pinned to "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St." and the surrounding area.
  12. present: The location is given precisely as "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St."
  13. present: The place is pinned to "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a street location.
  14. present: It places the business at the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.
  15. present: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street location.
  16. present: It places the event at "a business located at the 1400 block of NE 42nd St."
  17. present: The location is given as "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street block.
  18. present: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street location.
  19. present: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street location.
  20. present: It gives the "1400 block of NE 42nd St." as the place the suspect entered a business.
  21. present: The "1400 block of NE 42nd St." gives a precise street location for the robbery.
  22. present: The location is given as "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street block.
  23. present: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a street address.
  24. present: It gives "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St.", a precise street location.
  25. present: It places the event at "the 1400 block of NE 42nd St." inside a business.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Two protective instructions are given to recipients: "Avoid area" in the original post and "Remain vigilant if in the area" in the update.

  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: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  2. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and later to "Remain vigilant if in the area."
  3. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  4. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area", clear protective actions.
  5. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and later to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  6. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area."
  7. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area", both protective actions.
  8. present: Recipients are told to remain vigilant if in the area and to avoid the area.
  9. present: Recipients are told to "Remain vigilant if in the area" and to "Avoid area".
  10. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area", both protective instructions.
  11. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  12. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area."
  13. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  14. present: Recipients are told to avoid the area and to remain vigilant if nearby.
  15. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  16. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  17. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  18. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area", both protective actions.
  19. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  20. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  21. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area", both protective actions.
  22. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and to "Remain vigilant if in the area".
  23. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and "Remain vigilant if in the area", direct protective actions.
  24. present: Recipients are told "Remain vigilant if in the area" and "Avoid area", both protective actions.
  25. present: Recipients are told to "Avoid area" and later to "Remain vigilant if in the area."
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Clock times are stamped throughout, from the incident "around 8:35 p.m." to the "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." reporting the suspect still unfound.

  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: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m.".
  2. present: Clock times such as "9:02 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." anchor the message in time.
  3. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  4. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  5. present: Clock times such as "9:02 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." anchor the message in time.
  6. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  7. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  8. present: Several clock times appear, including 9:02 p.m. and the 8:35 p.m. onset.
  9. present: Clock times like "9:02 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." anchor the message in time.
  10. present: Clock times "9:02 p.m.", "8:55 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." anchor the message in time.
  11. present: Several clock times appear, including "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the 8:35 p.m. entry.
  12. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  13. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m.".
  14. present: Clock times 9:02 p.m., 8:55 p.m. and 8:35 p.m. anchor the sequence.
  15. present: Multiple clock times appear, including "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the 8:35 p.m. onset.
  16. present: Clock times anchor each entry: 9:02 p.m., 8:55 p.m. and the 8:35 p.m. robbery.
  17. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m.".
  18. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  19. present: Clock stamps such as "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." fix recency.
  20. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  21. present: Clock times anchor the sequence: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  22. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  23. present: Clock times anchor it: "UPDATE at 9:02 p.m." and the robbery "around 8:35 p.m."
  24. present: Clock times "9:02 p.m.", "8:55 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m." anchor the message in time.
  25. present: It stamps each block with clock times such as "9:02 p.m." and "around 8:35 p.m."
• Impactabsent5/25

  Final assessment

  Absent by majority, 5 of 25. The only consequence line is "No injuries have been reported", and nothing says what harm the armed suspect could cause; a minority counted that no injury report as impact.

  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. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never says what the armed suspect could do.
  2. absent: Beyond saying no injuries occurred, it never states what harm the armed suspect could cause.
  3. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  4. absent: Beyond "No injuries have been reported" nothing states what harm the armed suspect could cause.
  5. present: Saying the suspect "may have a gun" and has "not been found" conveys continuing danger to readers.
  6. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  7. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never says what the armed suspect could do to people.
  8. absent: No consequence or severity is stated, and the text says no injuries have been reported.
  9. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  10. absent: Only "No injuries have been reported" appears, so no potential harm or severity is conveyed.
  11. present: It reports the outcome for people, "No injuries have been reported", plus a possibly armed suspect still loose.
  12. absent: It states "No injuries have been reported" and never says the suspect is dangerous or what harm could follow.
  13. present: It reports the consequence so far, "No injuries have been reported", alongside an armed suspect still loose.
  14. absent: It reports no injuries and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  15. absent: Beyond "No injuries have been reported" it never says what harm the armed suspect could cause.
  16. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  17. absent: Beyond naming the armed robbery it states "No injuries have been reported" and no severity or potential harm.
  18. present: Severity is conveyed by an unfound suspect who "may have a gun", plus the note that "No injuries have been reported."
  19. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  20. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never says what the armed suspect could do.
  21. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what harm the armed suspect could cause.
  22. absent: The only outcome line is "No injuries have been reported", which states no harm rather than potential consequences.
  23. present: It reports the consequence to people, "No injuries have been reported", alongside the armed suspect.
  24. absent: It reports "No injuries have been reported" and never states what the armed suspect could do.
  25. absent: Nothing states harm or severity; it says instead that "No injuries have been reported."