Fraudulent callers impersonating campus police with do-not-share warning

To check this alert, SuperGrok Heavy 4.5 (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

  Arbitrator synthesis: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  2. present: Full read: sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  3. present: Independent pass finds sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  5. present: Coding judgment: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  6. present: From the wording, sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  7. present: Alert text shows sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  8. present: Reader notes sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  9. present: Decision basis: sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  10. present: Justified because sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  11. present: The deciding point is that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  12. present: Element call: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  13. present: Text supports that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  14. present: On a full independent read, sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  15. present: Pass judgment: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  16. present: Source of the call is that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  17. present: After reading the full product, sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  18. present: Clear from the message that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  20. present: Body-level evidence: sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  21. present: Message content establishes that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  22. present: Scoring this element: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  23. present: Primary evidence is that sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  24. present: Re-read confirms sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
  25. present: Final independent call: Sender branding or CSUF Police authority is present.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: A specific hazard is named in the product. Vote total supports verdict 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: A specific hazard is named in the product.
  2. present: Full read: a specific hazard is named in the product.
  3. present: Independent pass finds a specific hazard is named in the product.
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  5. present: Coding judgment: A specific hazard is named in the product.
  6. present: From the wording, a specific hazard is named in the product.
  7. present: Alert text shows a specific hazard is named in the product.
  8. present: Reader notes a specific hazard is named in the product.
  9. present: Decision basis: a specific hazard is named in the product.
  10. present: Justified because a specific hazard is named in the product.
  11. present: The deciding point is that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  12. present: Element call: A specific hazard is named in the product.
  13. present: Text supports that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  14. present: On a full independent read, a specific hazard is named in the product.
  15. present: Pass judgment: A specific hazard is named in the product.
  16. present: Source of the call is that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  17. present: After reading the full product, a specific hazard is named in the product.
  18. present: Clear from the message that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: a specific hazard is named in the product.
  20. present: Body-level evidence: a specific hazard is named in the product.
  21. present: Message content establishes that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  22. present: Scoring this element: A specific hazard is named in the product.
  23. present: Primary evidence is that a specific hazard is named in the product.
  24. present: Re-read confirms a specific hazard is named in the product.
  25. present: Final independent call: A specific hazard is named in the product.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: No location named. Vote total supports verdict 0.

  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. absent: No location named.
  2. absent: Full read: no location named.
  3. absent: Independent pass finds no location named.
  4. absent: Verdict rests on the fact that no location named.
  5. absent: Coding judgment: No location named.
  6. absent: From the wording, no location named.
  7. absent: Alert text shows no location named.
  8. absent: Reader notes no location named.
  9. absent: Decision basis: no location named.
  10. absent: Justified because no location named.
  11. absent: The deciding point is that no location named.
  12. absent: Element call: No location named.
  13. absent: Text supports that no location named.
  14. absent: On a full independent read, no location named.
  15. absent: Pass judgment: No location named.
  16. absent: Source of the call is that no location named.
  17. absent: After reading the full product, no location named.
  18. absent: Clear from the message that no location named.
  19. absent: This pass codes present or absent from: no location named.
  20. absent: Body-level evidence: no location named.
  21. absent: Message content establishes that no location named.
  22. absent: Scoring this element: No location named.
  23. absent: Primary evidence is that no location named.
  24. absent: Re-read confirms no location named.
  25. absent: Final independent call: No location named.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  2. present: Full read: protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  3. present: Independent pass finds protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  5. present: Coding judgment: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  6. present: From the wording, protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  7. present: Alert text shows protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  8. present: Reader notes protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  9. present: Decision basis: protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  10. present: Justified because protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  11. present: The deciding point is that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  12. present: Element call: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  13. present: Text supports that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  14. present: On a full independent read, protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  15. present: Pass judgment: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  16. present: Source of the call is that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  17. present: After reading the full product, protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  18. present: Clear from the message that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  20. present: Body-level evidence: protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  21. present: Message content establishes that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  22. present: Scoring this element: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  23. present: Primary evidence is that protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  24. present: Re-read confirms protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
  25. present: Final independent call: Protective or instructional guidance is directed at recipients.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: A time or recency cue is present. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: A time or recency cue is present.
  2. present: Full read: a time or recency cue is present.
  3. present: Independent pass finds a time or recency cue is present.
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that a time or recency cue is present.
  5. present: Coding judgment: A time or recency cue is present.
  6. present: From the wording, a time or recency cue is present.
  7. present: Alert text shows a time or recency cue is present.
  8. present: Reader notes a time or recency cue is present.
  9. present: Decision basis: a time or recency cue is present.
  10. present: Justified because a time or recency cue is present.
  11. present: The deciding point is that a time or recency cue is present.
  12. present: Element call: A time or recency cue is present.
  13. present: Text supports that a time or recency cue is present.
  14. present: On a full independent read, a time or recency cue is present.
  15. present: Pass judgment: A time or recency cue is present.
  16. present: Source of the call is that a time or recency cue is present.
  17. present: After reading the full product, a time or recency cue is present.
  18. present: Clear from the message that a time or recency cue is present.
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: a time or recency cue is present.
  20. present: Body-level evidence: a time or recency cue is present.
  21. present: Message content establishes that a time or recency cue is present.
  22. present: Scoring this element: A time or recency cue is present.
  23. present: Primary evidence is that a time or recency cue is present.
  24. present: Re-read confirms a time or recency cue is present.
  25. present: Final independent call: A time or recency cue is present.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: No consequence language beyond the hazard name. Vote total supports verdict 0.

  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 language beyond the hazard name.
  2. absent: Full read: no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  3. absent: Independent pass finds no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  4. absent: Verdict rests on the fact that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  5. absent: Coding judgment: No consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  6. absent: From the wording, no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  7. absent: Alert text shows no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  8. absent: Reader notes no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  9. absent: Decision basis: no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  10. absent: Justified because no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  11. absent: The deciding point is that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  12. absent: Element call: No consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  13. absent: Text supports that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  14. absent: On a full independent read, no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  15. absent: Pass judgment: No consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  16. absent: Source of the call is that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  17. absent: After reading the full product, no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  18. absent: Clear from the message that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  19. absent: This pass codes present or absent from: no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  20. absent: Body-level evidence: no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  21. absent: Message content establishes that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  22. absent: Scoring this element: No consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  23. absent: Primary evidence is that no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  24. absent: Re-read confirms no consequence language beyond the hazard name.
  25. absent: Final independent call: No consequence language beyond the hazard name.