Gas smell at Raitt Hall

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. Authority is attributed at both ends: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" and, in the all clear, "Seattle Fire Department determined there is no gas leak".

  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 Fire Department" is named as the responding authority on scene.
  2. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" and made the determination, naming the authority.
  3. present: Seattle Fire Department is named as on scene and making the determination.
  4. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency for the message.
  5. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named as on scene and as making the determination.
  6. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named as on scene and making the determination.
  7. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency in the message.
  8. present: Seattle Fire Department is named on scene as the responding agency.
  9. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is identified as the agency on scene and making the determination.
  10. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" names the responding agency issuing the information.
  11. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is identified as on scene and as the agency giving the all clear.
  12. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is identified as on scene and making the determination.
  13. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named both as determining the all clear and as being on scene.
  14. present: Seattle Fire Department is named on scene at the building.
  15. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency.
  16. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding authority for this notice.
  17. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named as the responder providing the determination.
  18. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named as on scene and as the body making the determination.
  19. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency.
  20. present: Seattle Fire Department is named as on scene and making the determination.
  21. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency issuing the information.
  22. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named both as the determiner of the all clear and as on scene.
  23. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene" identifies the responding agency.
  24. present: "Seattle Fire Department" is named as on scene and making the determination.
  25. present: "Seattle Fire Department is on the scene," naming the responding agency.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The hazard is named as "reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall", later resolved as no leak, possibly "related to construction nearby".

  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 hazard is "reports of a gas smell", later checked as a possible gas leak.
  2. present: "Reports of a gas smell" and the question of a "gas leak" name the hazard specifically.
  3. present: The hazard is specific: "reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall" and a possible gas leak.
  4. present: The hazard named is "reports of a gas smell" and a possible "gas leak at Raitt Hall".
  5. present: The hazard is a "gas smell" and possible gas leak, a specific reported danger.
  6. present: The hazard is specific: "reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall", later ruled no gas leak.
  7. present: The hazard is a "gas smell" and the possibility of a gas leak, a specific threat.
  8. present: Reports of a gas smell and a possible gas leak name the hazard.
  9. present: It reports "a gas smell" and addresses whether there was a "gas leak", a specific hazard.
  10. present: "Reports of a gas smell" and the question of a "gas leak" name a specific hazard.
  11. present: The specific concern is "reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall", later ruled out as a leak.
  12. present: It names "reports of a gas smell", a specific hazard, later resolved as no leak.
  13. present: It reports "a gas smell at Raitt Hall" and later that there is "no gas leak", a specific hazard.
  14. present: A reported gas smell, checked as a possible gas leak, is the hazard.
  15. present: The hazard is stated as "reports of a gas smell" and a possible gas leak.
  16. present: The hazard is specific: "reports of a gas smell" and the question of a gas leak.
  17. present: "Reports of a gas smell" and a checked "gas leak" name the specific hazard.
  18. present: The hazard is "reports of a gas smell", later assessed as a possible gas leak.
  19. present: "Reports of a gas smell" and the later reference to a possible "gas leak" name the hazard.
  20. present: The hazard is stated as "reports of a gas smell" and a possible gas leak.
  21. present: "Reports of a gas smell" and the later finding of "no gas leak" name a specific gas hazard.
  22. present: The specific hazard reported is "a gas smell at Raitt Hall", a possible gas leak.
  23. present: "There are reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall" names a specific potential gas hazard.
  24. present: "reports of a gas smell" and the question of a "gas leak" name the hazard.
  25. present: The hazard is specific: "reports of a gas smell at Raitt Hall," later ruled no gas leak.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The location is exact, "Raitt Hall in the Quad", with a map link, and it is repeated in the all clear.

  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: The spot is "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a named campus building.
  2. present: The location is given as "Raitt Hall in the Quad" with a map link.
  3. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad" with a map link.
  4. present: It pinpoints "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a named campus building.
  5. present: "Raitt Hall in the Quad" identifies the exact building and campus area.
  6. present: The place is given as "Raitt Hall in the Quad" with a map link.
  7. present: It places it "at Raitt Hall in the Quad", a named building.
  8. present: Raitt Hall in the Quad is specified.
  9. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad" as the site.
  10. present: It specifies "Raitt Hall in the Quad" with a map link.
  11. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a precise campus building.
  12. present: The place is "Raitt Hall in the Quad", with a map link.
  13. present: The location is precise: "Raitt Hall in the Quad".
  14. present: Raitt Hall in the Quad is named with a map link.
  15. present: The location is precise: "Raitt Hall in the Quad".
  16. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad" as the location.
  17. present: "Raitt Hall in the Quad" pins the location to a named building.
  18. present: It pins the report to "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a named building.
  19. present: It specifies "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a named campus building.
  20. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad" as the building involved.
  21. present: "Raitt Hall in the Quad" pins the report to a named campus building.
  22. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad" as the building involved.
  23. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad", a specific building.
  24. present: "Raitt Hall in the Quad" is a specific building and campus area.
  25. present: It names "Raitt Hall in the Quad," a precise campus building.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. A protective instruction is given plainly: "Please avoid the area and building", later lifted by "All clear."

  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 instructs readers to "avoid the area and building".
  2. present: "Please avoid the area and building" is an explicit protective instruction.
  3. present: Readers are instructed to "avoid the area and building".
  4. present: The instruction "Please avoid the area and building" is an explicit protective action.
  5. present: Readers are instructed to "avoid the area and building", a protective action.
  6. present: Readers are told, "Please avoid the area and building."
  7. present: It instructs readers to "Please avoid the area and building".
  8. present: The message instructs people to avoid the area and building.
  9. present: It directs readers to "avoid the area and building".
  10. present: "Please avoid the area and building" instructs recipients on protective action.
  11. present: Readers are directed to "avoid the area and building", a clear protective instruction.
  12. present: It directs readers to "Please avoid the area and building."
  13. present: It instructs readers to "avoid the area and building".
  14. present: Readers are asked to avoid the area and the building.
  15. present: It directs recipients to "please avoid the area and building".
  16. present: Recipients are told to "Please avoid the area and building".
  17. present: "Please avoid the area and building" is an explicit protective instruction.
  18. present: The text says "Please avoid the area and building", a protective instruction.
  19. present: "Please avoid the area and building" instructs recipients to take a protective action.
  20. present: Readers are told, "Please avoid the area and building".
  21. present: "Please avoid the area and building" instructs recipients to keep away.
  22. present: It directs readers to "Please avoid the area and building".
  23. present: Readers are told to "avoid the area and building", a direct protective action.
  24. present: "Please avoid the area and building" is an explicit protective instruction.
  25. present: "Please avoid the area and building" instructs recipients to stay away.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Both messages are clock stamped, the "ORIGINAL POST at 11:02 a.m." and the "UPDATE at 11:26 a.m." all clear.

  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: Both the "11:02 a.m." post and the "11:26 a.m." all clear carry clock times.
  2. present: The post carries times of "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m."
  3. present: Both posts are time stamped, "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m."
  4. present: Both the all clear "at 11:26 a.m." and the original post "at 11:02 a.m." carry clock times.
  5. present: Both posts carry clock times, "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m.".
  6. present: The posts carry times, "UPDATE at 11:26 a.m." and "ORIGINAL POST at 11:02 a.m."
  7. present: Times "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." appear on the two posts.
  8. present: Both 11:02 a.m. and 11:26 a.m. are given.
  9. present: Timestamps "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." are given.
  10. present: Timestamps "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." are given for both posts.
  11. present: The times "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." mark the original and all clear.
  12. present: It carries "UPDATE at 11:26 a.m." and "ORIGINAL POST at 11:02 a.m."
  13. present: Times are given as "11:26 a.m." for the all clear and "11:02 a.m." originally.
  14. present: Times 11:26 a.m. and 11:02 a.m. are stated.
  15. present: Times "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." are given.
  16. present: The original and all clear carry times of 11:02 a.m. and 11:26 a.m.
  17. present: It is timed at "11:26 a.m." for the all clear and "11:02 a.m." originally.
  18. present: Both the original, "11:02 a.m.", and the all clear, "11:26 a.m.", are timed.
  19. present: "UPDATE at 11:26 a.m." and "ORIGINAL POST at 11:02 a.m." mark the timing.
  20. present: Both the 11:26 a.m. all clear and the 11:02 a.m. original post carry clock times.
  21. present: Times "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." are given for the update and original post.
  22. present: The posts are stamped "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m.", giving clear recency.
  23. present: Timestamps "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." mark when each message was posted.
  24. present: "11:26 a.m." and "11:02 a.m." timestamp the all clear and original post.
  25. present: Original and all clear carry times "11:02 a.m." and "11:26 a.m."
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25. Every read agrees no consequence or severity is conveyed: the alert reports a smell, then states firefighters "determined there is no gas leak at Raitt Hall."

  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: No consequence is described, and the update concludes "there is no gas leak".
  2. absent: No consequence is described, and the follow up says there was no leak at all.
  3. absent: The outcome is "no gas leak" and the smell is attributed to construction, with no harm described.
  4. absent: No consequence of a gas leak is stated; the update instead says no leak existed.
  5. absent: It concludes "there is no gas leak" and offers no statement of possible harm.
  6. absent: No consequence or danger level is described, only that the smell may come from construction.
  7. absent: No consequence or severity of a possible gas leak is stated anywhere in the text.
  8. absent: No potential consequence is described, and the follow-up says there was no gas leak.
  9. absent: No consequence is described, and the all clear says there is "no gas leak".
  10. absent: The all clear says there is "no gas leak" and attributes the smell to construction, conveying no harm.
  11. absent: No consequence or severity is described, and the finding is that no leak existed.
  12. absent: No harm or severity is conveyed; the conclusion is that there is "no gas leak."
  13. absent: No consequence or severity of a possible leak is described, only the smell and the response.
  14. absent: The all clear says there is no gas leak and no consequence is described.
  15. absent: No consequence of a gas leak is described; the update says there is no leak at all.
  16. absent: No consequence is described, and the follow up says there is "no gas leak".
  17. absent: The message concludes there is "no gas leak" and never states what a leak could do.
  18. absent: No consequence or severity is stated: the finding is "there is no gas leak" and the smell is attributed to construction.
  19. absent: No potential consequence is stated, and the update says there is "no gas leak".
  20. absent: No consequence is described: it simply concludes the smell may come from construction.
  21. absent: No consequence or severity is stated, and the all clear attributes the smell to nearby construction.
  22. absent: The resolution is "there is no gas leak", and no potential consequence of the smell is described.
  23. absent: No consequence or severity is conveyed: it only reports that no leak existed.
  24. absent: No consequence is described, and the closing finding is that no leak existed.
  25. absent: No consequence or danger level is stated, only that no leak was found.