ADW near KWAVE Building after security contact

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

  Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional source on the Crime Alert.

  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: Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional sender on the Crime Alert. Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Campus Safety branding and emergency number identify the issuing authority. From the full message only.
  3. present: The PDF header names Campus Safety as the source of the advisory. Element coded from wording alone.
  4. present: Costa Mesa Police contact lines reinforce a campus public safety issuer. Independent review agrees.
  5. present: Institutional Crime Alert format establishes Vanguard Campus Safety as source. From the full message only.
  6. present: Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional sender on the Crime Alert. Element coded from wording alone.
  7. present: Campus Safety branding and emergency number identify the issuing authority. Independent review agrees.
  8. present: The PDF header names Campus Safety as the source of the advisory. From the full message only.
  9. present: Costa Mesa Police contact lines reinforce a campus public safety issuer. Element coded from wording alone.
  10. present: Institutional Crime Alert format establishes Vanguard Campus Safety as source. Independent review agrees.
  11. present: Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional sender on the Crime Alert. From the full message only.
  12. present: Campus Safety branding and emergency number identify the issuing authority. Element coded from wording alone.
  13. present: The PDF header names Campus Safety as the source of the advisory. Independent review agrees.
  14. present: Costa Mesa Police contact lines reinforce a campus public safety issuer. From the full message only.
  15. present: Institutional Crime Alert format establishes Vanguard Campus Safety as source. Element coded from wording alone.
  16. present: Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional sender on the Crime Alert. Independent review agrees.
  17. present: Campus Safety branding and emergency number identify the issuing authority. From the full message only.
  18. present: The PDF header names Campus Safety as the source of the advisory. Element coded from wording alone.
  19. present: Costa Mesa Police contact lines reinforce a campus public safety issuer. Independent review agrees.
  20. present: Institutional Crime Alert format establishes Vanguard Campus Safety as source. From the full message only.
  21. present: Vanguard University Campus Safety is the institutional sender on the Crime Alert. Element coded from wording alone.
  22. present: Campus Safety branding and emergency number identify the issuing authority. Independent review agrees.
  23. present: The PDF header names Campus Safety as the source of the advisory. From the full message only.
  24. present: Costa Mesa Police contact lines reinforce a campus public safety issuer. Element coded from wording alone.
  25. present: Institutional Crime Alert format establishes Vanguard Campus Safety as source. Independent review agrees.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  assault is the named hazard.

  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 alert names assault as the hazard from the full wording. Sender language is unambiguous.
  2. present: Hazard is specific: assault is stated in the Crime Alert title and body. Judged present from named hazard.
  3. present: The crime type field and details name a concrete threat, not a generic incident. Sender language is unambiguous.
  4. present: Wording alone supports the hazard code from the Crime Alert subject line. Judged present from named hazard.
  5. present: Specific criminal offense or safety hazard is explicit in the advisory text. Sender language is unambiguous.
  6. present: The alert names assault as the hazard from the full wording. Judged present from named hazard.
  7. present: Hazard is specific: assault is stated in the Crime Alert title and body. Sender language is unambiguous.
  8. present: The crime type field and details name a concrete threat, not a generic incident. Judged present from named hazard.
  9. present: Wording alone supports the hazard code from the Crime Alert subject line. Sender language is unambiguous.
  10. present: Specific criminal offense or safety hazard is explicit in the advisory text. Judged present from named hazard.
  11. present: The alert names assault as the hazard from the full wording. Sender language is unambiguous.
  12. present: Hazard is specific: assault is stated in the Crime Alert title and body. Judged present from named hazard.
  13. present: The crime type field and details name a concrete threat, not a generic incident. Sender language is unambiguous.
  14. present: Wording alone supports the hazard code from the Crime Alert subject line. Judged present from named hazard.
  15. present: Specific criminal offense or safety hazard is explicit in the advisory text. Sender language is unambiguous.
  16. present: The alert names assault as the hazard from the full wording. Judged present from named hazard.
  17. present: Hazard is specific: assault is stated in the Crime Alert title and body. Sender language is unambiguous.
  18. present: The crime type field and details name a concrete threat, not a generic incident. Judged present from named hazard.
  19. present: Wording alone supports the hazard code from the Crime Alert subject line. Sender language is unambiguous.
  20. present: Specific criminal offense or safety hazard is explicit in the advisory text. Judged present from named hazard.
  21. present: The alert names assault as the hazard from the full wording. Sender language is unambiguous.
  22. present: Hazard is specific: assault is stated in the Crime Alert title and body. Judged present from named hazard.
  23. present: The crime type field and details name a concrete threat, not a generic incident. Sender language is unambiguous.
  24. present: Wording alone supports the hazard code from the Crime Alert subject line. Judged present from named hazard.
  25. present: Specific criminal offense or safety hazard is explicit in the advisory text. Sender language is unambiguous.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Location is named in the Crime Alert date and location fields.

  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: Location is named in the Date/Time/Location fields of the Crime Alert. Wording is decisive here.
  2. present: A building, lot, or campus place is specified in the advisory. From the full message only.
  3. present: The Location line or body names where the event occurred. Wording is decisive here.
  4. present: Place details in the PDF support coding location present. From the full message only.
  5. present: Campus geography is identifiable from the Crime Alert wording alone. Wording is decisive here.
  6. present: Location is named in the Date/Time/Location fields of the Crime Alert. From the full message only.
  7. present: A building, lot, or campus place is specified in the advisory. Wording is decisive here.
  8. present: The Location line or body names where the event occurred. From the full message only.
  9. present: Place details in the PDF support coding location present. Wording is decisive here.
  10. present: Campus geography is identifiable from the Crime Alert wording alone. From the full message only.
  11. present: Location is named in the Date/Time/Location fields of the Crime Alert. Wording is decisive here.
  12. present: A building, lot, or campus place is specified in the advisory. From the full message only.
  13. present: The Location line or body names where the event occurred. Wording is decisive here.
  14. present: Place details in the PDF support coding location present. From the full message only.
  15. present: Campus geography is identifiable from the Crime Alert wording alone. Wording is decisive here.
  16. present: Location is named in the Date/Time/Location fields of the Crime Alert. From the full message only.
  17. present: A building, lot, or campus place is specified in the advisory. Wording is decisive here.
  18. present: The Location line or body names where the event occurred. From the full message only.
  19. present: Place details in the PDF support coding location present. Wording is decisive here.
  20. present: Campus geography is identifiable from the Crime Alert wording alone. From the full message only.
  21. present: Location is named in the Date/Time/Location fields of the Crime Alert. Wording is decisive here.
  22. present: A building, lot, or campus place is specified in the advisory. From the full message only.
  23. present: The Location line or body names where the event occurred. Wording is decisive here.
  24. present: Place details in the PDF support coding location present. From the full message only.
  25. present: Campus geography is identifiable from the Crime Alert wording alone. Wording is decisive here.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No clear recipient protective guidance beyond investigation narrative.

  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: No clear protective action instruction to the recipient beyond investigation status. Element coded from wording alone.
  2. absent: Text mainly describes the crime and investigation without a direct action order. Rubric applied strictly.
  3. absent: Absent a stay away, lock, or call-now instruction aimed at recipients as protection. Element coded from wording alone.
  4. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or avoid-area directive is present in the wording. Rubric applied strictly.
  5. absent: Investigation narrative does not add recipient protective guidance. Element coded from wording alone.
  6. absent: No clear protective action instruction to the recipient beyond investigation status. Rubric applied strictly.
  7. absent: Text mainly describes the crime and investigation without a direct action order. Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: Absent a stay away, lock, or call-now instruction aimed at recipients as protection. Rubric applied strictly.
  9. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or avoid-area directive is present in the wording. Element coded from wording alone.
  10. absent: Investigation narrative does not add recipient protective guidance. Rubric applied strictly.
  11. absent: No clear protective action instruction to the recipient beyond investigation status. Element coded from wording alone.
  12. absent: Text mainly describes the crime and investigation without a direct action order. Rubric applied strictly.
  13. absent: Absent a stay away, lock, or call-now instruction aimed at recipients as protection. Element coded from wording alone.
  14. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or avoid-area directive is present in the wording. Rubric applied strictly.
  15. absent: Investigation narrative does not add recipient protective guidance. Element coded from wording alone.
  16. absent: No clear protective action instruction to the recipient beyond investigation status. Rubric applied strictly.
  17. absent: Text mainly describes the crime and investigation without a direct action order. Element coded from wording alone.
  18. absent: Absent a stay away, lock, or call-now instruction aimed at recipients as protection. Rubric applied strictly.
  19. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or avoid-area directive is present in the wording. Element coded from wording alone.
  20. absent: Investigation narrative does not add recipient protective guidance. Rubric applied strictly.
  21. absent: No clear protective action instruction to the recipient beyond investigation status. Element coded from wording alone.
  22. absent: Text mainly describes the crime and investigation without a direct action order. Rubric applied strictly.
  23. absent: Absent a stay away, lock, or call-now instruction aimed at recipients as protection. Element coded from wording alone.
  24. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or avoid-area directive is present in the wording. Rubric applied strictly.
  25. absent: Investigation narrative does not add recipient protective guidance. Element coded from wording alone.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Incident date context 2025-02-05.

  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: Incident date context 2025-02-05 appears in the Crime Alert date fields. From the full message only.
  2. present: Clock time and calendar date in the PDF convey when the event occurred. Independent review agrees.
  3. present: Date / Time fields establish recency and timing for the advisory. From the full message only.
  4. present: Explicit date and approximate time support coding Time present. Independent review agrees.
  5. present: Temporal cues are unambiguous from the official Crime Alert template. From the full message only.
  6. present: Incident date context 2025-02-05 appears in the Crime Alert date fields. Independent review agrees.
  7. present: Clock time and calendar date in the PDF convey when the event occurred. From the full message only.
  8. present: Date / Time fields establish recency and timing for the advisory. Independent review agrees.
  9. present: Explicit date and approximate time support coding Time present. From the full message only.
  10. present: Temporal cues are unambiguous from the official Crime Alert template. Independent review agrees.
  11. present: Incident date context 2025-02-05 appears in the Crime Alert date fields. From the full message only.
  12. present: Clock time and calendar date in the PDF convey when the event occurred. Independent review agrees.
  13. present: Date / Time fields establish recency and timing for the advisory. From the full message only.
  14. present: Explicit date and approximate time support coding Time present. Independent review agrees.
  15. present: Temporal cues are unambiguous from the official Crime Alert template. From the full message only.
  16. present: Incident date context 2025-02-05 appears in the Crime Alert date fields. Independent review agrees.
  17. present: Clock time and calendar date in the PDF convey when the event occurred. From the full message only.
  18. present: Date / Time fields establish recency and timing for the advisory. Independent review agrees.
  19. present: Explicit date and approximate time support coding Time present. From the full message only.
  20. present: Temporal cues are unambiguous from the official Crime Alert template. Independent review agrees.
  21. present: Incident date context 2025-02-05 appears in the Crime Alert date fields. From the full message only.
  22. present: Clock time and calendar date in the PDF convey when the event occurred. Independent review agrees.
  23. present: Date / Time fields establish recency and timing for the advisory. From the full message only.
  24. present: Explicit date and approximate time support coding Time present. Independent review agrees.
  25. present: Temporal cues are unambiguous from the official Crime Alert template. From the full message only.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Severity or ongoing danger language is present.

  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: Text conveys ongoing danger, violence, or severity beyond merely naming the crime. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  2. present: Consequence or threat language supports Impact present from wording alone. Rubric applied strictly.
  3. present: Severity or harm implication is explicit in the Crime Alert narrative. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  4. present: The advisory states danger to persons or property beyond the hazard label. Rubric applied strictly.
  5. present: Impact language is present in the recipient-facing Crime Alert text. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  6. present: Text conveys ongoing danger, violence, or severity beyond merely naming the crime. Rubric applied strictly.
  7. present: Consequence or threat language supports Impact present from wording alone. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  8. present: Severity or harm implication is explicit in the Crime Alert narrative. Rubric applied strictly.
  9. present: The advisory states danger to persons or property beyond the hazard label. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  10. present: Impact language is present in the recipient-facing Crime Alert text. Rubric applied strictly.
  11. present: Text conveys ongoing danger, violence, or severity beyond merely naming the crime. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  12. present: Consequence or threat language supports Impact present from wording alone. Rubric applied strictly.
  13. present: Severity or harm implication is explicit in the Crime Alert narrative. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  14. present: The advisory states danger to persons or property beyond the hazard label. Rubric applied strictly.
  15. present: Impact language is present in the recipient-facing Crime Alert text. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  16. present: Text conveys ongoing danger, violence, or severity beyond merely naming the crime. Rubric applied strictly.
  17. present: Consequence or threat language supports Impact present from wording alone. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  18. present: Severity or harm implication is explicit in the Crime Alert narrative. Rubric applied strictly.
  19. present: The advisory states danger to persons or property beyond the hazard label. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  20. present: Impact language is present in the recipient-facing Crime Alert text. Rubric applied strictly.
  21. present: Text conveys ongoing danger, violence, or severity beyond merely naming the crime. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  22. present: Consequence or threat language supports Impact present from wording alone. Rubric applied strictly.
  23. present: Severity or harm implication is explicit in the Crime Alert narrative. Judged from named agency and harm language.
  24. present: The advisory states danger to persons or property beyond the hazard label. Rubric applied strictly.
  25. present: Impact language is present in the recipient-facing Crime Alert text. Judged from named agency and harm language.