Burglary reported with campus community notice timely warning burglaries

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 MIT Police responded" opens the account, and the notice is signed "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police, Crime Prevention/Community Policing Unit".

  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: MIT Police are identified as responders and as the issuing office in the closing signature block.
  2. present: The closing signature "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police" identifies who issued the warning.
  3. present: The MIT Police are named throughout and the notice is signed by a named MIT Police sergeant.
  4. present: MIT Police are named as responders and the signature block reads "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police".
  5. present: The message closes with "Issued by Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police" and cites MIT Police throughout.
  6. present: "the MIT Police responded" plus the signed sergeant's block identifies the sending authority.
  7. present: The message closes with "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police", identifying the sending authority.
  8. present: The notice ends with "Issued by Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police", naming the authority.
  9. present: The sender is identified throughout as "the MIT Police" and signed by a sergeant of its prevention unit.
  10. present: The sender is identified as the MIT Police, signed by a sergeant of the Crime Prevention unit.
  11. present: The MIT Police are named as responders and Sergeant O'Connor signs the notice as issuer.
  12. present: "the MIT Police responded" plus the Issued by block naming Sergeant O'Connor identifies the sender.
  13. present: MIT Police are named as responders and the signature block reads "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police".
  14. present: The sender is identified as the MIT Police, with Sergeant O'Connor of the Crime Prevention Unit signing the notice.
  15. present: MIT Police are the responding agency and the notice is signed by Sergeant O'Connor of the MIT Police.
  16. present: The responding agency "the MIT Police" is named and a sergeant signs the bottom.
  17. present: The MIT Police are the responding and issuing agency, with a named sergeant signing at the end.
  18. present: "MIT Police" is named as responder and the notice is signed by a sergeant of the MIT Police.
  19. present: The MIT Police are named as responders and the notice closes with a signing sergeant of that department.
  20. present: The message is issued by "Sergeant David J. O'Connor, MIT Police", an identified police sender.
  21. present: "the MIT Police responded" plus the signing sergeant identify the issuing agency.
  22. present: The sender is identified as the MIT Police, signed by Sergeant David J. O'Connor of Crime Prevention.
  23. present: The message identifies the MIT Police throughout and is signed by a named sergeant of that department.
  24. present: MIT Police are named as the responders and the notice is signed by a sergeant of the MIT Police.
  25. present: The MIT Police are named as responders and the notice is signed by Sergeant David J. O'Connor of MIT Police.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The crime is named as "a report of a burglary", with "an unknown male rummaging through his desk and personal belongings" and $30.00 stolen.

  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 specific crime named is a burglary, with "an unknown male rummaging through his desk and personal belongings".
  2. present: It names a burglary, with "an unknown male rummaging through his desk and personal belongings".
  3. present: Identifies "a report of a burglary" with an unknown male rummaging through a desk.
  4. present: The specific crime is named, "a report of a burglary", with a male "rummaging through his desk".
  5. present: It reports a burglary with "an unknown male rummaging through his desk" and $30.00 stolen.
  6. present: It names "a report of a burglary" with a male found rummaging through a desk.
  7. present: The specific crime is named, "a report of a burglary" with a male "rummaging through his desk".
  8. present: It reports "a burglary" with a male rummaging through a desk, a specifically named crime.
  9. present: It names "a report of a burglary" with a male found "rummaging through his desk and personal belongings".
  10. present: It reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk", a specific crime.
  11. present: Reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30.00 stolen.
  12. present: The threat named is a "burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30.00 taken.
  13. present: The threat is a "burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk", and $30.00 stolen.
  14. present: It reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30.00 stolen.
  15. present: Names "a report of a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30 stolen.
  16. present: It describes "a report of a burglary" with an unknown male rummaging through a desk.
  17. present: The specific crime is stated, "a report of a burglary", with a male found "rummaging through his desk".
  18. present: The threat is "a burglary", with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk and personal belongings".
  19. present: It reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk", a specific property crime.
  20. present: It reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30.00 stolen.
  21. present: It reports "a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk", a named crime.
  22. present: It names "a report of a burglary" with an unknown male "rummaging through his desk" and $30 stolen.
  23. present: The threat is explicit: officers responded "on a report of a burglary" with an intruder found rummaging through a desk.
  24. present: It reports "a burglary" where an unknown male was found "rummaging through his desk" and $30 was stolen.
  25. present: It reports "a burglary", an unknown male "rummaging through his desk", with $30.00 stolen.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The address is explicit: "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", with the scene being the reporting party's office.

  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 address is explicit: "building 66 located at 25 Ames St."
  2. present: It specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a precise campus address.
  3. present: Locates it at "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on the MIT campus.
  4. present: Place is given precisely: "building 66 located at 25 Ames St."
  5. present: The office burglary is located at "building 66 located at 25 Ames St."
  6. present: The location given is "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on the MIT campus.
  7. present: It names "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." as the place of the incident.
  8. present: The crime location is given as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.".
  9. present: It locates the crime at "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a specific campus address.
  10. present: The burglary is placed at "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a named campus address.
  11. present: Specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." as the scene.
  12. present: The place is given as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on campus.
  13. present: It specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a named campus building and street address.
  14. present: The place is given as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a specific campus building.
  15. present: Specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a precise campus address.
  16. present: It points to "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." as the scene.
  17. present: It specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." as the scene.
  18. present: It specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.", a precise campus address.
  19. present: The place given is "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on the MIT campus.
  20. present: The place is given as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St.".
  21. present: The site is given as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St."
  22. present: Location is given precisely as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St."
  23. present: It specifies "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." as the scene of the office break-in.
  24. present: The place is specified as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on campus.
  25. present: The place is stated as "building 66 located at 25 Ames St." on the MIT campus.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The reader is told to "Always lock your office and residential doors and windows", to lock up "even if only for a minute or two", and to report tailgaters.

  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: Recipients are instructed to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call the police line.
  2. present: Readers are directed to lock offices, report tailgaters, and call MIT Police if a crime is occurring.
  3. present: Instructs recipients to lock doors and windows and to call the MIT Police about suspicious activity.
  4. present: Recipients are told to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call MIT Police about crimes.
  5. present: It instructs readers to lock doors and windows, report tailgaters, and notify MIT Police of crimes.
  6. present: Readers are directed to lock offices, report tailgaters, and call 617-253-1212 about suspected crimes.
  7. present: Protective advice is directed at readers: lock doors and windows and "Report suspicious people or activity".
  8. present: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows and to report suspicious people and tailgaters.
  9. present: Recipients are told to lock office doors, report tailgaters, and call the police number given.
  10. present: Recipients are told to lock offices, verify locks work, and report suspicious people and tailgaters.
  11. present: Directs the community to call MIT Police, lock offices, and report tailgaters and suspicious activity.
  12. present: It directs readers to notify police immediately, lock offices, and report tailgaters, all actions for them.
  13. present: Recipients are told to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call MIT Police about crimes.
  14. present: Recipients are instructed to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call the police number given.
  15. present: Tells recipients to lock offices and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call the police number given.
  16. present: Recipients are told to lock office doors, report tailgaters, and call police about crimes.
  17. present: Readers are directed to lock offices and doors, report tailgaters and call MIT Police about suspicious activity.
  18. present: Recipients are told to report crimes immediately and to lock offices "even if only for a minute or two".
  19. present: Readers are instructed to lock doors and windows, report tailgaters, and call the MIT Police about suspicious activity.
  20. present: Recipients are told to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call MIT Police about crimes.
  21. present: Readers are directed to lock doors, report tailgaters and call the police about suspicious activity.
  22. present: Tips instruct readers to lock offices, report suspicious people, and call the MIT Police about crimes.
  23. present: Readers are instructed to lock offices even for a minute or two and to report tailgaters and suspicious people.
  24. present: Recipients are told to lock office and residential doors, report tailgaters, and call the MIT Police about crimes.
  25. present: It tells recipients to lock doors and windows, report suspicious people, and call MIT Police about crimes.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. An exact clock anchor is supplied by the opening line, "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".

  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 precise date and clock time are given: "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  2. present: It is dated "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM", an exact clock time.
  3. present: Timestamped "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM", a precise date and hour.
  4. present: The date and minute are stated, "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  5. present: The incident is timed exactly: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  6. present: The date and clock time "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM" anchor the event in time.
  7. present: Timing is precise: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  8. present: The report is dated "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM", an explicit time reference.
  9. present: It dates the response precisely: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  10. present: It timestamps the response as "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  11. present: Timestamped "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  12. present: It dates the response precisely: "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  13. present: The date and time "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM" anchor the report in time.
  14. present: It timestamps the response as "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  15. present: Reports the response at "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM", a specific clock time.
  16. present: It timestamps the response "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  17. present: A precise timestamp appears: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  18. present: It is dated "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM", a specific clock time.
  19. present: The report is timed to "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  20. present: It is timed "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  21. present: Timed as "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  22. present: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM" anchors the report in date and time.
  23. present: Time is anchored precisely at "October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  24. present: The text dates the response precisely: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
  25. present: The report carries a full timestamp: "On October 25, 2020, at 2:03 AM".
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25 voted present. The only consequence stated is that "$30.00 had been stolen"; nothing tells readers what harm this intruder could do to them or how serious the risk is.

  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: Only a $30.00 loss is reported as fact; the message never says what this hazard could do to readers.
  2. absent: Beyond noting "$30.00 had been stolen", it never states how dangerous or consequential the threat could be.
  3. absent: Beyond noting $30.00 taken, it offers no statement of danger or severity to the community.
  4. absent: Beyond the loss of thirty dollars, no statement of danger or seriousness to people is offered.
  5. absent: No statement of danger or consequence appears; the loss of $30 is reported as fact, not as a threat to readers.
  6. absent: Beyond the loss of thirty dollars, no danger, injury risk, or severity statement is offered.
  7. absent: Beyond $30 being stolen, no statement of danger or potential consequence to readers is offered.
  8. absent: Only a thirty dollar theft is mentioned, with no statement of danger or severity to readers.
  9. absent: Beyond a $30 loss it states no consequence, danger, or severity for readers.
  10. absent: Beyond noting $30 was stolen, the notice states no danger, severity, or potential consequence to readers.
  11. absent: Only a $30 loss is mentioned, with no statement of danger or severity to people.
  12. absent: Only a $30 loss is noted, with no statement of danger or severity attached to the crime.
  13. absent: Beyond the loss of $30.00 it states no danger or severity such as injury risk to readers.
  14. absent: Beyond the loss of $30.00 there is no statement of danger or severity to readers.
  15. absent: Loss of thirty dollars is recounted but no statement of danger or severity to people is offered.
  16. absent: Beyond $30.00 taken, no statement of danger or seriousness to people is offered.
  17. absent: Nothing states how serious the risk is; a $30 loss is reported without any statement of danger to people.
  18. absent: Beyond noting "$30.00 had been stolen" it states no danger or severity of consequence to readers.
  19. absent: Beyond a $30 loss, nothing states how serious or dangerous the situation could be for readers.
  20. absent: Beyond a small cash loss, no statement of danger or severity to people or property is offered.
  21. absent: A $30 loss is reported but no statement of danger or seriousness to the reader is offered.
  22. absent: Nothing states what harm could follow beyond a small theft: no severity or danger statement appears.
  23. absent: Only a $30 loss is noted, with no statement of danger, injury risk, or severity for the community.
  24. absent: Beyond thirty dollars taken, no statement of danger, injury, or severity to readers appears.
  25. absent: Nothing states what harm could follow; the loss of $30 is reported as fact, not as a warned consequence.