Crime alert for sexual assault report at O'Shaughnessy Hall

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

  All 25 agree (1): The "Virginia Tech Police Department" received a report of a "sexual assault" involving a student suspect.

  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 "Virginia Tech Police Department" received a report of a "sexual assault" involving a student suspect.
  2. present: Because the Virginia Tech Police Department is identified as the source of the notice.
  3. present: Checklist confirms source as Virginia Tech Police Department in the from line.
  4. present: The Virginia Tech Police Department released this notice.
  5. present: The release is formally sourced to the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  6. present: Virginia Tech Police disclosed a sexual assault report involving a student suspect who was an acquaintance of the survivor.
  7. present: Virginia Tech Police Department crime alert.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department issued this report of a sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy elements.
  9. present: "Virginia Tech Police Department" is the stated origin of the alert.
  10. present: Looking again, Virginia Tech Police Department is still named as the source of the alert.
  11. present: Agency attribution is clear with Virginia Tech Police Department as the source of the report.
  12. present: This advisory is issued by the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  13. present: The alert is issued by the Virginia Tech Police Department as the authoritative reporting agency.
  14. present: Virginia Tech Police Dept issues report based notice.
  15. present: The source is explicitly the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  16. present: This one is from the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  17. present: The text names the Virginia Tech Police Department as the source of the report.
  18. present: Present because the Virginia Tech Police Department is stated as the agency issuing the report.
  19. present: Source is Virginia Tech Police Department as the From line and agency that received the report.
  20. present: Virginia Tech Police Department appears as the issuing source whereas without it the alert would be anonymous.
  21. present: Virginia Tech Police Department receives and discloses the sexual assault report.
  22. present: The Virginia Tech Police Department is stated as the agency that received the report.
  23. present: The alert is issued by the Virginia Tech Police Department as the named source.
  24. present: Recipients can see the Virginia Tech Police Department named as the issuing agency.
  25. present: The message identifies the Virginia Tech Police Department as the issuing source.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): The incident meets "Rape as defined in Virginia Code 18.2-61, and Forcible sodomy as defined in Virginia Code 18.2-67.1."

  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 incident meets "Rape as defined in Virginia Code 18.2-61, and Forcible sodomy as defined in Virginia Code 18.2-67.1."
  2. present: Since the incident is reported as Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  3. present: Hazard coded as sexual assault meeting Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  4. present: A sexual assault meeting the elements of rape and forcible sodomy under Virginia law was reported.
  5. present: The hazard is sexual assault meeting Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  6. present: The reported offense meets the elements of rape under Virginia Code 18.2-61 and forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  7. present: Sexual assault meeting Rape 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy 18.2-67.1.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department classifies the reported sexual assault as Rape under Virginia Code 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  9. present: "Sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code" is the hazard described.
  10. present: A second pass still presents sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy elements as the hazard.
  11. present: Hazard is a sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy elements under cited Virginia Code.
  12. present: A reported sexual assault meets the elements of rape and forcible sodomy under Virginia Code.
  13. present: The hazard is a reported sexual assault meeting the elements of Rape under Virginia Code 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code 18.2-67.1.
  14. present: Sexual assault meeting rape and forcible sodomy code elements.
  15. present: The hazard is sexual assault characterized as rape and forcible sodomy under Virginia Code.
  16. present: They report a sexual assault that they classify as rape and forcible sodomy.
  17. present: The text reports a sexual assault meeting the elements of Rape and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code.
  18. present: Present because a sexual assault is reported meeting Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
  19. present: Hazard is sexual assault meeting Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1 as reported.
  20. present: Sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy statutes defines the hazard whereas without those elements the crime would be unnamed.
  21. present: A sexual assault meets Rape and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code 18.2-61 and 18.2-67.1.
  22. present: A sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code is identified as the hazard.
  23. present: The alert reports a sexual assault meeting the elements of Rape and Forcible sodomy under Virginia Code.
  24. present: Recipients learn the hazard is a sexual assault meeting Rape and Forcible sodomy elements under Virginia Code.
  25. present: The text states a sexual assault meeting elements of Rape under 18.2-61 and Forcible sodomy under 18.2-67.1.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): The assault "occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall (530 Washington St.)."

  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 assault "occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall (530 Washington St.)."
  2. present: Because the assault occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  3. present: Location verified as O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  4. present: The incident happened at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington Street.
  5. present: The incident is located at O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington St.
  6. present: The incident took place at O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington Street.
  7. present: O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington St.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department places the incident at O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington St.
  9. present: "O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St." is where the incident occurred.
  10. present: Even read skeptically, O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St. remains the stated location.
  11. present: Incident place is O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  12. present: The incident occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington Street.
  13. present: The incident occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall, 530 Washington Street.
  14. present: O'Shaughnessy Hall 530 Washington St.
  15. present: The incident location is O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington Street.
  16. present: The place is O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  17. present: The text locates the incident at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  18. present: Present because the incident occurred at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  19. present: Location is O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St. where the incident occurred.
  20. present: O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St. supplies location whereas without that site readers would not know where it occurred.
  21. present: The incident occurs at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  22. present: The incident is located at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  23. present: The alert locates the incident at O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  24. present: Recipients get the location as O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St.
  25. present: The notice gives O'Shaughnessy Hall at 530 Washington St. as where the incident occurred.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (0): The notice gives no campus safety steps, stating only that information is "limited to protect the identity, privacy, and rights of the survivor."

  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: The notice gives no campus safety steps, stating only that information is "limited to protect the identity, privacy, and rights of the survivor."
  2. absent: Since only a privacy limitation is stated and no guidance is directed to the campus community.
  3. absent: No actionable guidance to the campus recipient is listed beyond a privacy limitation statement.
  4. absent: No clear steps for the wider campus community are given beyond a note that details are limited to protect the survivor.
  5. absent: Recipient guidance is absent aside from a generic privacy and rights protection note.
  6. absent: No safety instructions for the campus community appear in the notice, which limits details to protect the survivor.
  7. absent: No action tips for recipients; survivor privacy note only.
  8. absent: Virginia Tech Police Department offers no actionable safety guidance to recipients beyond limiting disclosed details.
  9. absent: "No call to act or safety tips for the community" are included, only a privacy limitation.
  10. absent: Re-checking, there is still no instruction telling the campus community what to do.
  11. absent: Message contains no actions for recipients to take regarding safety or reporting.
  12. absent: No direct safety actions for recipients are stated beyond a note that disclosed details are limited to protect the survivor.
  13. absent: The notice states that information is limited to protect the survivor and does not furnish affirmative safety instructions to recipients.
  14. absent: No protective guidance only privacy rights statement.
  15. absent: No preventive or reporting instructions for the campus audience appear in the provided text.
  16. absent: No tips, no call to action, nothing telling campus what to do next.
  17. absent: The text includes no recipient safety steps or reporting instructions, only a privacy limitation statement.
  18. absent: Absent because the notice only explains limited disclosure for privacy and rights and does not tell recipients what to do.
  19. absent: Guidance is absent because the notice only limits disclosed information for survivor privacy with no recipient safety steps.
  20. absent: No recipient guidance such as reporting tips or contacts is present whereas with guidance the alert would direct protective action.
  21. absent: Alert offers no protective action for recipients beyond a privacy note.
  22. absent: No protective or reporting instructions addressed to the campus community are given.
  23. absent: The alert provides no action steps for the campus community and only explains that information is limited to protect the survivor.
  24. absent: Recipients receive no protective guidance or how to report similar concerns, only a privacy limitation statement.
  25. absent: The notice does not state actions recipients should take for personal safety or reporting beyond privacy wording.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): Police received the report on "Friday, Feb. 13, 2026," for an incident in the "early hours of Feb. 1, 2026."

  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: Police received the report on "Friday, Feb. 13, 2026," for an incident in the "early hours of Feb. 1, 2026."
  2. present: Because the report came Friday Feb. 13, 2026 for an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  3. present: Time present with report Feb. 13 2026 and incident in the early hours of Feb. 1 2026.
  4. present: Police received the report on February 13, 2026, and the incident occurred in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  5. present: A report received Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, concerns an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  6. present: Police received the report on Friday, February 13, 2026, for an incident in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  7. present: Report Fri Feb 13 2026; incident early hours of Feb 1 2026.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department received the report on Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, for an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  9. present: "Report on Friday, Feb. 13, 2026 for early hours of Feb. 1, 2026" sets report and incident timing.
  10. present: Double-checking timing, the Feb. 13, 2026 report and early hours of Feb. 1, 2026 incident stay dated.
  11. present: Report received Friday Feb. 13, 2026, with the incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  12. present: Police received the report on Friday, February 13, 2026, for an incident in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  13. present: The department received the report on Friday, February 13, 2026, for an incident in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  14. present: Report 2/13/2026 incident early hours 2/1/2026.
  15. present: The report date is February 13, 2026 and the event is placed in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  16. present: They got the report on February 13, 2026 for something that happened in the early hours of February 1, 2026.
  17. present: The text dates receipt of the report to Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, and the incident to the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  18. present: Present because police received the report on Friday Feb. 13, 2026 and the incident is set in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  19. present: Time is a report received Friday Feb. 13, 2026 for an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  20. present: Report on Friday Feb. 13, 2026 and early hours of Feb. 1, 2026 for the incident give timing whereas without those dates the when would be absent.
  21. present: Police receive the report on Friday Feb. 13, 2026 for an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  22. present: A report date of Friday, Feb. 13, 2026 and an early hours of Feb. 1, 2026 occurrence are stated.
  23. present: The alert states the report was received Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, and the incident occurred in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  24. present: Recipients are given a report date of Friday Feb. 13, 2026 and an incident time in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
  25. present: It notes a report on Friday Feb. 13, 2026, for an incident in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026.
• Impactpresent20/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 20/25 codes 1: The "survivor and offender were known to each other" as "acquaintances," and the "suspect is a student at Virginia Tech."

  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 "survivor and offender were known to each other" as "acquaintances," and the "suspect is a student at Virginia Tech."
  2. present: Since the parties were acquaintances and the suspect is a student at Virginia Tech.
  3. present: Impact beyond the hazard name notes acquaintance relationship and that the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  4. present: The survivor and suspect knew each other as acquaintances, and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  5. present: Additional impact is limited to acquaintance relationship and student status of the suspect.
  6. present: The suspect is a Virginia Tech student who was known to the survivor beforehand.
  7. present: Parties known as acquaintances; suspect is a VT student.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department states the survivor and offender were acquaintances, the suspect is a student, and details are limited to protect the survivor.
  9. present: "Known acquaintances and a student suspect" add impact context beyond the crime labels.
  10. absent: Second look still shows no impact detail past the statutory crime labels.
  11. absent: Code-based offense naming does not communicate consequences or severity beyond the hazard itself.
  12. present: The survivor and offender were known acquaintances, and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  13. present: The survivor and offender were known to each other as acquaintances, and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  14. present: Acquaintance student suspect survivor identity protected.
  15. present: Survivor and offender were acquaintances and the suspect is a student at Virginia Tech.
  16. absent: Beyond naming the offenses and that they were acquaintances, there is no extra severity detail.
  17. absent: The text does not describe harms or outcomes beyond naming the sexual assault and related code elements.
  18. present: Present because the parties were acquaintances and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, relationship and status impact beyond the crime title.
  19. present: Impact is that the survivor and offender were acquaintances and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, beyond the offense labels.
  20. present: Acquaintance relationship and suspect as a Virginia Tech student add impact past the hazard name whereas without that detail only the offense title would stand.
  21. present: Survivor and offender know each other as acquaintances and the suspect attends Virginia Tech as a student.
  22. absent: No separate severity, injury, or broader harm language beyond the offense names is included.
  23. present: The alert notes the survivor and offender were acquaintances and that the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  24. present: Recipients learn the survivor and offender were acquaintances, the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, and details are limited to protect the survivor.
  25. present: It shows the parties were acquaintances and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, with identity details withheld.