Test reported with campus community notice with great shakeout

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 sender is identified as the university, "The UW Alert notification system will be tested", with "UW Emergency Management" credited for the preparedness material.

  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: The "UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" are named as sources.
  2. present: The "UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending institution.
  3. present: The message is from the UW, referencing UW Alert and UW Emergency Management as the issuers.
  4. present: The notice is issued in the name of "The UW Alert notification system" with UW Emergency Management cited.
  5. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sender.
  6. present: The message is from the UW, referencing "UW Emergency Management" and the UW Alert system.
  7. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending institution.
  8. present: UW Alert, UW Emergency Management and the university itself are named as sender.
  9. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" are identified as the senders.
  10. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  11. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  12. present: "UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  13. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  14. present: UW Alert and UW Emergency Management are identified as the notifying bodies.
  15. present: The message is from "The UW Alert notification system" with UW Emergency Management cited.
  16. present: The UW Alert notification system and UW Emergency Management are named as sending the test.
  17. present: "UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  18. present: The notice comes from the UW, citing "UW Emergency Management" and the "UW Alert notification system".
  19. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending organization.
  20. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending institution.
  21. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sending university system.
  22. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the issuing institution.
  23. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and UW Emergency Management identify the sender.
  24. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sender.
  25. present: "The UW Alert notification system" and "UW Emergency Management" identify the sender.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Earthquakes are named through "the Great ShakeOut 2020, an international earthquake drill" and "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest". Unanimous.

  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 earthquakes, referencing "an international earthquake drill" and "earthquake risks".
  2. present: Earthquakes are named as the subject of the drill and of the preparedness material.
  3. present: It names earthquakes as the hazard behind the ShakeOut drill and preparedness links.
  4. present: The subject hazard is earthquakes, named through the Great ShakeOut drill and seismic risk discussion.
  5. present: The earthquake drill and "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" name a specific hazard.
  6. present: Earthquakes are the named hazard, tied to "an international earthquake drill."
  7. present: It names earthquakes as the subject hazard, including "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest".
  8. present: An earthquake drill is described, naming earthquakes as the hazard prepared for.
  9. present: Earthquakes are named as the hazard, via the "international earthquake drill" and "faults in Washington state".
  10. present: Earthquakes are named through the "Great ShakeOut 2020, an international earthquake drill".
  11. present: The subject is the "Great ShakeOut 2020, an international earthquake drill", naming earthquakes.
  12. present: The earthquake hazard is named, including "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest."
  13. present: It names earthquakes as the subject hazard via the "international earthquake drill" and seismic risks.
  14. present: An earthquake, via the Great ShakeOut earthquake drill, is the named hazard.
  15. present: Earthquakes are named as the hazard the ShakeOut drill and preparedness links address.
  16. present: The earthquake is the named hazard, framed through the Great ShakeOut drill and seismic risk.
  17. present: The earthquake hazard is named via the "Great ShakeOut 2020, an international earthquake drill".
  18. present: Earthquakes are the named hazard, referenced through "an international earthquake drill" and "earthquake risks".
  19. present: The earthquake hazard is named through the "international earthquake drill" and preparing for earthquakes.
  20. present: Earthquakes are the named hazard, via the ShakeOut drill and earthquake preparedness links.
  21. present: It names earthquakes explicitly, describing "the Great ShakeOut 2020, an international earthquake drill".
  22. present: The message is built around "an international earthquake drill" and earthquake preparedness, naming the hazard.
  23. present: The earthquake hazard is named through "an international earthquake drill" and earthquake preparedness.
  24. present: The message is about an "earthquake drill" and preparing for earthquakes, a named hazard.
  25. present: Earthquakes are named as the subject of the drill and the regional risk.
• Locationpresent17/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 17 of 25. A majority accepted the regional framing, "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" and "earthquakes and faults in Washington state". Eight reads dissented that no campus place is identified.

  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 situates the risk in "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state".
  2. present: "The Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" are named places tied to the seismic risk.
  3. present: It references the "Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the area of seismic risk.
  4. absent: No place on campus is identified; the post names only web resources and the state drill.
  5. present: "The Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" are named places tied to the risk.
  6. present: It references regional geography, "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" and faults "in Washington state."
  7. present: It references the Pacific Northwest and Washington state as the areas of seismic concern.
  8. present: The Pacific Northwest and Washington state are named as the places at risk.
  9. present: It references "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the area concerned.
  10. absent: The notice names no campus place; it only points to state and regional resources.
  11. absent: The text mentions regional risk links but no location for any event or campus area.
  12. present: It references "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the areas concerned.
  13. absent: No specific place is given; the Pacific Northwest appears only as a topic of linked reading.
  14. present: It references the Pacific Northwest and Washington state.
  15. present: It references "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" and "faults in Washington state".
  16. present: It refers to "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the area of earthquake risk.
  17. absent: Beyond a state level "Washington state" reference, no site, building or campus area is specified.
  18. present: Places are named: "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the seismic region of concern.
  19. present: It references the "Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the places at issue.
  20. present: It references "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the places at risk.
  21. absent: No campus, building or area is given as a location; states appear only as links to outside resources.
  22. present: It references "the Pacific Northwest" and "Washington state" as the places at risk.
  23. absent: No location of concern is given: the campus, buildings and streets go unnamed.
  24. absent: No place is given beyond the state and region references in the reading links.
  25. present: It refers to "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" and faults in Washington state.
• Guidanceabsent11/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 11 of 25. Only 11 reads found an instruction, and they rested on "sign up and learn more here", a subscription prompt. The majority saw an announcement of a test with links, not protective direction.

  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. absent: It only describes a test message and links; no protective action is directed at the reader.
  2. present: Readers are told to "sign up and learn more" and directed to earthquake preparation information.
  3. absent: It only points to sign up links and background reading, not a protective action to take.
  4. present: Readers who lack notifications are told to "sign up and learn more", a preparedness instruction.
  5. absent: It only invites people to sign up and read more; no protective action is instructed.
  6. present: Readers are directed to "sign up" for alerts and to seek "more information about preparing for earthquakes."
  7. present: It directs readers to prepare for earthquakes and to "sign up and learn more here".
  8. absent: Readers are pointed to sign-up and information links but given no protective action to take.
  9. absent: It only points to sign-up links and further reading rather than instructing a protective action.
  10. absent: It asks readers to sign up and follow links, but never gives a protective action for a hazard.
  11. absent: It only points readers to sign up and read more; no protective action is instructed.
  12. absent: It points readers to more information and sign up links but prescribes no protective action.
  13. absent: It directs people to sign up and read more but never gives a protective action to take.
  14. absent: It only directs people to sign up and read more, not to take a protective action.
  15. present: Readers are told to "sign up and learn more" and directed to preparedness information.
  16. present: Readers are told to "sign up and learn more" about preparing for earthquakes.
  17. absent: Readers are only asked to "sign up" and follow links, not to take any protective action.
  18. present: Readers are directed to "sign up and learn more" and pointed to information "about preparing for earthquakes".
  19. absent: It only points to more information and sign-up links; no protective action is instructed.
  20. absent: It points readers to sign up and to learn more but never gives a protective action to take.
  21. absent: It only tells people to sign up and read more, never naming a protective action to take.
  22. present: It directs readers to "sign up and learn more" and to prepare for earthquakes.
  23. present: It tells readers to "sign up and learn more" and directs them to preparedness information.
  24. present: It directs readers to "sign up" and to information "about preparing for earthquakes".
  25. present: Readers are urged to "sign up" for alerts and to prepare for earthquakes.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The test is scheduled precisely, "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.", with the Outdoor Alert test "the morning of Oct. 15". No dissent.

  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: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.".
  2. present: It is scheduled for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  3. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  4. present: The test is dated and timed: "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  5. present: It sets the test for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.".
  6. present: The test is scheduled "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  7. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  8. present: The test is set for Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.
  9. present: It gives "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m." as the test time.
  10. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.".
  11. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  12. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  13. present: It specifies "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m." for the test.
  14. present: Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m. is specified.
  15. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  16. present: The test is dated "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  17. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.".
  18. present: The test is scheduled for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  19. present: "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m." precisely dates the test.
  20. present: It specifies "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m." for the test.
  21. present: The test is scheduled for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m.", a specific date and time.
  22. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  23. present: It sets the test on "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
  24. present: "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m." fixes the time of the test.
  25. present: The test is set for "Thursday, Oct. 15, around 10:15 a.m."
• Impactabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 1 of 25. "Earthquake risks" and "seismic risks" appear only as topics of linked resources and a professor's discussion; a lone read treated those labels as conveying severity.

  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: "Seismic risks" is a topic reference, not a statement of what an earthquake would do.
  2. absent: It gestures at "earthquake risks" without saying what a quake could actually do.
  3. absent: It alludes to "earthquake risks" without saying what an earthquake could do to people or buildings.
  4. absent: It points to material on earthquake risk but never states consequences such as damage or injury.
  5. absent: Seismic risk is referenced as a topic but no consequence or severity is actually stated.
  6. absent: It mentions risks in the abstract but never states what shaking could do or how bad it could be.
  7. absent: It mentions risks in passing but never states what an earthquake could do or how severe it would be.
  8. absent: Seismic risk is referenced only as a discussion topic, with no consequence or severity stated.
  9. absent: It mentions "earthquake risks" as a reading topic without stating any consequence or severity.
  10. absent: It mentions seismic risk resources but never says what an earthquake could actually do.
  11. absent: Seismic risk is referenced as a topic but no harm or severity is actually stated.
  12. absent: Seismic risk is mentioned only as a topic, with no stated consequence or severity.
  13. absent: Seismic risk is mentioned only as a discussion topic, with no consequence or severity stated.
  14. absent: It mentions earthquake risks generally without stating any consequence or severity.
  15. absent: It points to risk resources but never states what an earthquake could actually do.
  16. absent: Seismic risk is referred to but no specific harm or severity of an earthquake is stated.
  17. absent: It points to "earthquake risks" resources but never states what an earthquake could do.
  18. present: It frames potential harm by pointing readers to "earthquake risks in the Pacific Northwest" and a discussion of "seismic risks".
  19. absent: "earthquake risks" is mentioned as a topic, but no consequence or severity is actually stated.
  20. absent: It mentions seismic risks only as a topic, without saying what a quake would do.
  21. absent: It mentions earthquake risks generally but states no consequence or severity of any hazard.
  22. absent: It points to "earthquake risks" as a reading topic without stating any consequence or severity.
  23. absent: It points to "earthquake risks" resources but never states a consequence or severity.
  24. absent: It mentions "earthquake risks" in a link label but never says what a quake would cause.
  25. absent: Seismic risk is mentioned in passing but no harm or severity is actually described.