Crime alert for sexual assault report at Pritchard 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" issued this alert after receiving the report.

  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" issued this alert after receiving the report.
  2. present: Because the alert comes from the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  3. present: Checklist confirms the Virginia Tech Police Department is named as the issuing source.
  4. present: The notice clearly comes from the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  5. present: The disclosure is attributed to the Virginia Tech Police Department as the issuing authority.
  6. present: Campus police at Virginia Tech originated the alert after receiving the complaint.
  7. present: VTPD source line, campus police as issuer.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department is identified as the source that received the report and released this alert.
  9. present: "Virginia Tech Police Department" is listed as the sender so the source is present.
  10. present: On second glance the source is still clearly the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  11. present: Virginia Tech Police Department is identified as the agency that received and issued the report.
  12. present: The Virginia Tech Police Department is named as the source that received and issued the report.
  13. present: The communication is issued by the Virginia Tech Police Department as the official reporting campus police agency.
  14. present: VTPD issues report based campus crime alert.
  15. present: Attribution rests with the Virginia Tech Police Department as the agency that received and issued the report.
  16. present: This one comes straight from the Virginia Tech Police Department.
  17. present: The text credits the Virginia Tech Police Department with issuing the report, so a source is present.
  18. present: Present because the Virginia Tech Police Department issued this campus crime notice.
  19. present: Source is the Virginia Tech Police Department as named at the start of the alert.
  20. present: Virginia Tech Police Department identifies who issued the alert so the source is present whereas without that attribution recipients would not know the agency.
  21. present: Virginia Tech Police Department issues this alert and anchors official campus police authorship.
  22. present: The Virginia Tech Police Department is named as the agency that received the sexual assault report.
  23. present: The alert identifies the Virginia Tech Police Department as the issuing authority for the report.
  24. present: Recipients can see the Virginia Tech Police Department is the stated source that received the sexual assault report.
  25. present: The notice identifies the Virginia Tech Police Department as the source.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): A reported "sexual assault" meeting elements of "Sexual Battery," "Object sexual penetration," and "Abduction."

  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: A reported "sexual assault" meeting elements of "Sexual Battery," "Object sexual penetration," and "Abduction."
  2. present: Since the hazard includes sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  3. present: Hazard is identified as sexual assault with cited elements of sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  4. present: It reports a sexual assault that meets sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia law.
  5. present: The report identifies sexual assault meeting the statutory elements of sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction.
  6. present: The case is framed as sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under state code.
  7. present: sexual assault with sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction codes.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department reports a sexual assault meeting the elements of sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  9. present: "sexual assault" with sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction name the hazard.
  10. present: Re-reading the charge list, the hazard still covers sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under cited Virginia Code sections.
  11. present: The hazard is documented as sexual assault with sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  12. present: The alert identifies sexual assault including sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction.
  13. present: The hazard is a reported sexual assault that, as stated, meets the elements of sexual battery under Virginia Code 18.2-67.4, object sexual penetration under Virginia Code 18.2-67.2, and abduction under Virginia Code 18.2-47.
  14. present: Sexual battery object penetration and abduction under VA code.
  15. present: The reported hazard is sexual assault alleged to meet sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  16. present: They report a sexual assault that they classify as sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction.
  17. present: The text cites sexual assault plus sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code, so a hazard is present.
  18. present: Present because the report describes sexual assault meeting sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia law.
  19. present: Hazard is sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction as the alert states those Virginia Code elements for a reported sexual assault.
  20. present: Sexual assault meeting sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code states the hazard whereas without those charges the threat type would be unspecified.
  21. present: Alert reports sexual assault that meets sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  22. present: Sexual assault is specified through sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  23. present: The alert describes a sexual assault meeting elements of sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction under Virginia Code.
  24. present: Recipients are informed of a reported sexual assault meeting elements of sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction.
  25. present: The alert states sexual assault involving sexual battery, object sexual penetration, and abduction.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): The incident occurred at "Pritchard Hall (630 Washington Street)".

  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 incident occurred at "Pritchard Hall (630 Washington Street)".
  2. present: Because the assault is located at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  3. present: Location is specified as Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  4. present: The incident is placed at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  5. present: The incident is fixed at Pritchard Hall, 630 Washington Street.
  6. present: The incident site is Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  7. present: Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department places the incident at Pritchard Hall, 630 Washington Street.
  9. present: "Pritchard Hall (630 Washington Street)" states where the incident occurred.
  10. present: A closer look still places the incident at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  11. present: Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street is an explicit, actionable location reference for campus responders.
  12. present: The incident is located at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  13. present: The incident is placed at Pritchard Hall, 630 Washington Street.
  14. present: Pritchard Hall 630 Washington Street.
  15. present: The episode is localized to Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  16. present: The place is Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  17. present: The text locates the incident at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street, so a location is present.
  18. present: Present because the incident is placed at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  19. present: Location is Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street where the alert says the incident occurred.
  20. present: Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street locates the incident whereas without that site the risk would have no geographic anchor.
  21. present: Incident occurs at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  22. present: The incident is located at Pritchard Hall, 630 Washington Street.
  23. present: The alert places the incident at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
  24. present: Recipients are given a clear site at Pritchard Hall, 630 Washington Street.
  25. present: The report notes the incident at Pritchard Hall at 630 Washington Street.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (0): No recipient guidance is provided beyond noting disclosure is "limited to protect" 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: No recipient guidance is provided beyond noting disclosure is "limited to protect" the survivor.
  2. absent: Since only survivor privacy language appears and no actionable guidance is directed to the community.
  3. absent: No actionable guidance is provided to recipients on protective steps or reporting channels.
  4. absent: Readers are not told what actions to take or how to stay safe.
  5. absent: The text supplies no recipient-directed safety instructions or reporting actions.
  6. absent: No guidance is directed to the campus audience beyond privacy limits on disclosure.
  7. absent: no recipient action steps, only privacy limit note.
  8. absent: Virginia Tech Police Department offers no actionable safety guidance to recipients beyond limiting disclosed details.
  9. absent: "Information disclosed here is limited" addresses privacy only and gives recipients no action steps so guidance is absent.
  10. absent: Even on a skeptical second read there is still no guidance telling recipients what to do.
  11. absent: Recipients receive no directives on what to do, only factual case and privacy language.
  12. absent: Recipients are not given any safety guidance, resource referrals, or recommended actions.
  13. absent: The text limits disclosure to protect the survivor and does not prescribe concrete protective steps for the broader campus audience.
  14. absent: No action tips only privacy rights statement.
  15. absent: Recipients receive no actionable safety guidance beyond a privacy limitation on disclosed details.
  16. absent: You do not get any tips, call numbers, or protective steps aimed at you.
  17. absent: The text includes no instructions telling the audience what to do, so guidance is absent.
  18. absent: Absent because the notice offers no protective steps or actions for recipients to take.
  19. absent: Guidance is absent because the alert only limits disclosure for survivor privacy and gives no protective steps for recipients.
  20. absent: Recipients get no instructed next steps or safety advice so guidance is absent whereas a present guidance block would tell them how to respond or report.
  21. absent: Text omits recipient safety steps and only limits disclosure to protect survivor privacy.
  22. absent: No action is directed to recipients beyond a privacy statement about limited disclosure.
  23. absent: The alert gives no instructions or recommended actions for recipients to take.
  24. absent: Recipients get no protective instructions or next steps, only a privacy limit on disclosed details.
  25. absent: The message gives no recipient safety guidance or recommended actions.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 agree (1): It occurred in the "late hours of Jan. 21, 2026, into the early morning hours of Jan. 22, 2026" and was reported on "Friday, Jan. 23, 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: It occurred in the "late hours of Jan. 21, 2026, into the early morning hours of Jan. 22, 2026" and was reported on "Friday, Jan. 23, 2026".
  2. present: Because the report was received Friday Jan. 23, 2026 for an incident spanning late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026.
  3. present: Report date of Jan. 23, 2026 and incident window from late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026 are both stated.
  4. present: The assault ran from late on Jan. 21, 2026 into early Jan. 22, 2026, and police got the report on Jan. 23, 2026.
  5. present: The incident spans late hours of Jan. 21, 2026 into early morning of Jan. 22, 2026, with the report received on Jan. 23, 2026.
  6. present: The report came in on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026, covering late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026.
  7. present: incident late 21 Jan into early 22 Jan 2026, report 23 Jan 2026.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department received the report on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026, for an incident from the late hours of Jan. 21, 2026 into the early morning of Jan. 22, 2026.
  9. present: "late hours of Jan. 21, 2026" into "early morning hours of Jan. 22, 2026" plus the Jan. 23 report date supply timing.
  10. present: Checking again, the report arrived Jan. 23, 2026 while the incident spans late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026.
  11. present: The incident window is stated from late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026, with report date Jan. 23, 2026.
  12. present: The event spans late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026, and was reported on Jan. 23, 2026.
  13. present: The department received the report on Friday, January 23, 2026, for an incident spanning the late hours of January 21, 2026, into the early morning hours of January 22, 2026.
  14. present: Report Jan 23 2026 late Jan 21 into early Jan 22.
  15. present: The report is dated Friday, Jan. 23, 2026, for an incident spanning late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026.
  16. present: They received the report on January 23, 2026 for an incident late on January 21 into early January 22, 2026.
  17. present: The text dates the report to Jan. 23, 2026 and the incident from late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026, so time is present.
  18. present: Present because the assault spans late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026 and the report is dated Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
  19. present: Time is the late hours of Jan. 21, 2026 into the early morning of Jan. 22, 2026 with the report received on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
  20. present: Report on Friday Jan. 23, 2026 and incident from late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026 supply timing whereas without those windows the when would be empty.
  21. present: Assault spans late hours of Jan. 21 2026 into early morning of Jan. 22 2026 while police receive the report on Jan. 23 2026.
  22. present: The report was received Friday, Jan. 23, 2026, for an incident from late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026.
  23. present: The alert states the incident occurred late on Jan. 21, 2026, into early Jan. 22, 2026, and was reported on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
  24. present: Recipients learn the incident spanned late hours of Jan. 21, 2026, into early morning of Jan. 22, 2026, and was reported on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.
  25. present: The notice shows the incident spanned late Jan. 21 into early Jan. 22, 2026, with a report on Jan. 23, 2026.
• Impactpresent15/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 15/25 codes 1: The survivor and offender were "known to each other" 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" and the "suspect is a student at Virginia Tech".
  2. present: Since the survivor and offender knew each other and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  3. absent: Beyond naming the offenses, the alert does not describe broader community impact or operational effects.
  4. present: The survivor and offender knew each other, and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  5. absent: Beyond naming the offenses, the notice states no separate consequence, severity, or harm language.
  6. present: The parties knew one another and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  7. present: parties known to each other, suspect is VT student.
  8. present: Virginia Tech Police Department states the survivor and offender were known to each other, the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, and details are limited to protect the survivor.
  9. absent: "known to each other" and student status add context but no injuries, disruption, or other effects beyond the hazard name so impact is absent.
  10. absent: A second look still shows no separate impact facts such as ongoing threat level or community-wide effects beyond the named crimes.
  11. absent: No casualty figures, facility status, or broader campus consequences are described past the charge names.
  12. absent: The notice does not describe additional harm, operational impact, or community effects beyond the listed crimes.
  13. present: The survivor and offender were known to each other, and the suspect is identified as a Virginia Tech student.
  14. present: Parties known to each other student suspect named class only.
  15. present: The survivor and offender were known to each other, and the suspect is stated to be a Virginia Tech student.
  16. absent: Saying the people knew each other and the suspect is a student does not add severity past the offense names.
  17. absent: The text adds no effects such as injuries or campus consequences beyond the named crimes, so impact is absent.
  18. absent: Absent because no community wide effects, injuries, or other consequences beyond the named offenses are described.
  19. present: Impact is that the survivor and offender were known to each other and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  20. present: That survivor and offender knew each other and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student expand impact past the hazard name whereas without that context only the crime title would remain.
  21. present: Survivor and offender know each other and the suspect attends Virginia Tech as a student.
  22. absent: Prior acquaintance and student status are mentioned, yet no impact language beyond the named crimes is provided.
  23. present: The alert notes the survivor and offender were known to each other and that the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.
  24. present: Recipients are told the survivor and offender knew each other and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student, beyond the hazard name.
  25. present: The alert notes the survivor and offender knew each other and the suspect is a Virginia Tech student.