Racial epithet on a residence-hall door whiteboard

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

  All 25 reads agree source is present. Campus Safety is named as the investigating authority, with Bias Education and Support Services as the reporting office.

  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: Campus Safety is named as the unit that received the report and is investigating.
  2. present: Bias Education and Support Services reported to Campus Safety, identifying campus authorities.
  3. present: Campus Safety is actively investigating, which names the issuing campus authority.
  4. present: Source is present because Campus Safety appears as the responding department.
  5. present: The notice is voiced by Campus Safety, which received the BESS report.
  6. present: Who is sending is Campus Safety, named twice as intake and investigator.
  7. present: Collaborating with on-campus partners still leaves Campus Safety as the named lead authority.
  8. present: A campus agency, Campus Safety, classifies the event and seeks those responsible.
  9. present: The text attributes both the report intake and the hate crime classification to Campus Safety.
  10. present: Campus Safety received a report is an identified campus public safety unit.
  11. present: The investigating body is named: Campus Safety, with BESS as the reporting office.
  12. present: Sender identity is Campus Safety, the lead agency named in the notice.
  13. present: Classified as a race-based hate crime is institutional voice from the Campus Safety unit already named.
  14. present: The timely notification is issued in Campus Safety's name as the investigating office.
  15. present: Naming Campus Safety as the recipient of the BESS report and the investigator satisfies source.
  16. present: An identified campus safety office is doing the classification and the investigation.
  17. present: Campus Safety is the authority listed from the opening sentence through the closing investigation line.
  18. present: The message names Campus Safety rather than coming from an unnamed office.
  19. present: Source coding is met by Campus Safety as the actor throughout.
  20. present: On-campus partners are unnamed, but Campus Safety itself is a named issuing authority.
  21. present: The department that received the February 28 report is Campus Safety, a specific agency.
  22. present: Campus Safety is actively investigating and collaborating, which identifies who is in charge.
  23. present: A named campus unit, Campus Safety, speaks the hate crime classification.
  24. present: BESS is a named reporting office, and Campus Safety is the named receiving and investigating authority.
  25. present: Campus Safety received a report from BESS names both a sender-side agency and a partner office.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that a race-based hate crime of intimidation, including a racial epithet, names a specific 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 header names a hate crime in the form of intimidation based on race.
  2. present: A racial epithet on a residential door whiteboard is a concrete bias crime, not a generic incident.
  3. present: Writing a racial epithet is a concrete crime description.
  4. present: The text classifies the event as a race-based hate crime.
  5. present: Intimidation based on race is a named crime, made more specific as a racial epithet.
  6. present: Hazard is hate crime intimidation, stated in both the title and the body.
  7. present: An unknown individual wrote a racial epithet, which specifies the act.
  8. present: Bias-motivated intimidation is more specific than emergency or situation.
  9. present: The crime type is intimidation, further labeled a hate crime based on race.
  10. present: A racial epithet on a door names what the threat is.
  11. present: Hate crime based on race is a specific Clery category, not a vague label.
  12. present: The notice says intimidation, a particular offense against a resident.
  13. present: What happened is named: a racial epithet written on a residential door.
  14. present: The threat is not generic, it is a race-based hate crime of intimidation.
  15. present: Classified as a race-based hate crime supplies a specific hazard name.
  16. present: Unknown individual wrote a racial epithet, a defined bias crime.
  17. present: Header and body both specify intimidation, not merely an incident.
  18. present: Race bias intimidation is a specific named hazard.
  19. present: Writing a racial epithet on a door whiteboard is a concrete intimidation threat.
  20. present: The message names hate crime and intimidation together as the offense.
  21. present: A door whiteboard was targeted, and the act is called a race-based hate crime.
  22. present: Hazard is present: hate crime in the form of intimidation.
  23. present: The text names intimidation and a hate crime rather than hiding behind situation.
  24. present: A bias-motivated incident is then specified as a racial epithet intended to intimidate.
  25. present: Naming a race-based hate crime of intimidation satisfies the specific threat requirement.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads locate the writing in Ward Hall on a residential door whiteboard.

  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 epithet is placed in Ward Hall.
  2. present: Location includes Ward Hall and a whiteboard on a residential door.
  3. present: A named building, Ward Hall, is the site.
  4. present: The whiteboard attached to a residential door in Ward Hall is a specific place.
  5. present: Where: Ward Hall, residential door whiteboard.
  6. present: The bias-motivated incident is sited in Ward Hall.
  7. present: Ward Hall is a concrete on-campus location.
  8. present: A whiteboard on a residential door locates the act inside the hall.
  9. present: Place is given as Ward Hall.
  10. present: The building name Ward Hall answers where.
  11. present: Residential door inside Ward Hall is more specific than campus alone.
  12. present: Location is present: Ward Hall.
  13. present: Readers are told the writing happened on a whiteboard in Ward Hall.
  14. present: A named hall plus residential door is a mapped campus place.
  15. present: The incident occurred in Ward Hall, as the first sentence states.
  16. present: Whiteboard attached to a residential door in Ward Hall is a precise interior location.
  17. present: Ward Hall is specified rather than an unnamed area.
  18. present: The geography is a residence hall building, Ward Hall.
  19. present: In Ward Hall is an explicit location phrase.
  20. present: The text pins the writing to a residential door whiteboard in Ward Hall.
  21. present: Named place: Ward Hall.
  22. present: Location coding is met by Ward Hall and its residential door.
  23. present: The targeted board is on a residential door in Ward Hall.
  24. present: The report of a bias-motivated incident in Ward Hall supplies location.
  25. present: The text says the writing occurred in Ward Hall on a residential door.
• Guidanceabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Near unanimous that investigating and seeking accountability is responder work, not a public protective instruction. One read stretches identification as community action.

  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 sentence tells recipients to avoid Ward Hall, watch the area, or take other protective action.
  2. absent: Actively investigating describes what Campus Safety is doing, which is not guidance to the public.
  3. absent: There is no lock doors, stay away, or report suspicious activity instruction aimed at readers.
  4. absent: Collaborating with on-campus partners is responder activity, not an audience directive.
  5. absent: The notice never says call anyone, evacuate, or monitor for updates.
  6. absent: Ensure accountability is a goal of the investigation, not a protective action for students.
  7. absent: Guidance is absent: the text has no instruction telling people what to do to stay safe.
  8. absent: Identify those responsible is the department's job, not a reader instruction.
  9. absent: Recipients are not told to avoid the hallway, lock rooms, or take any step.
  10. absent: Nothing in the message is a protective action command to the audience.
  11. absent: The body reports a crime and an investigation, with zero how to protect language.
  12. absent: No shelter, evacuate, or stay away wording appears.
  13. absent: Follow up actions listed are all Campus Safety's, not the public's.
  14. absent: There is no call 911, monitor, or remain indoors line.
  15. absent: The text does not tell anyone to stay inside, leave, or avoid Ward Hall.
  16. absent: Guidance fails because no protective action is directed at recipients.
  17. absent: Investigation and partner collaboration are not instructions to the reader.
  18. present: Asking the campus, in effect, to support identifying those responsible functions as a directed community action.
  19. absent: No safety step is requested of the people receiving the notification.
  20. absent: The message informs about intimidation and does not tell readers what to do.
  21. absent: Protective guidance such as avoid the area is simply not in the text.
  22. absent: The text does not tell anyone to stay inside, leave, or watch the hall.
  23. absent: Actively investigating in collaboration with partners is not an instruction to recipients.
  24. absent: Appropriate accountability is an investigative aim, not a public protective step.
  25. absent: Guidance fails because the only content for the public is a crime narrative and an investigation update.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Broad agreement that March 3, 2025 and February 28, 2025 date the notice and the report.

  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: The header date is March 3, 2025.
  2. present: On February 28, 2025 opens the narrative with a date.
  3. present: March 3, 2025 and February 28, 2025 both mark when.
  4. present: The report was received on February 28, 2025, a clear date.
  5. present: Time is present via the printed March 3, 2025 dateline.
  6. present: A calendar date appears at the top and again in the first sentence.
  7. present: February 28, 2025 is an explicit time reference.
  8. present: The notice is dated March 3, 2025.
  9. present: When Campus Safety received the report is stated: February 28, 2025.
  10. present: Recency is conveyed by dating the report February 28, 2025 under a March 3 header.
  11. present: The phrase On February 28, 2025 is a date stamp.
  12. present: Time coding is met by the March 3 and February 28, 2025 references.
  13. present: A specific day in 2025 is given for the intimidation report.
  14. present: The timely notification carries the date March 3, 2025.
  15. present: Dated language is in both the title block and the body.
  16. present: February 28, 2025 tells recipients when the report came in.
  17. present: The incident notice is calendar stamped March 3, 2025.
  18. present: Time is not missing: two full dates are stated.
  19. present: On February 28, 2025, Campus Safety received a report supplies when.
  20. present: The header March 3, 2025 is a sufficient date cue.
  21. present: Recipients can tell the event is tied to February 28, 2025.
  22. present: A report date of February 28, 2025 is written out.
  23. present: Actively investigating can be read as ongoing, and the two dates already satisfy time.
  24. present: The March 3, 2025 product date plus February 28 meet the when or recency test.
  25. present: Two calendar dates, March 3, 2025 and February 28, 2025, convey when.
• Impactabsent8/25

  Final assessment

  Majority treats intent to intimidate as the crime name, not a separate impact clause. Dissent reads targeted intimidation as stated harm to the resident.

  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: Hate crime and intimidation name the offense without extra severity words such as dangerous.
  2. present: Intent to intimidate is an explicit statement of harm directed at the resident.
  3. absent: Intent to intimidate explains the Clery classification rather than adding could cause injury language.
  4. absent: Impact is absent: classifying a hate crime names the hazard, which the rubric says is not enough.
  5. absent: Writing an epithet restates the intimidation offense rather than adding a separate consequence.
  6. present: A racial epithet on a residential door is described as targeted intimidation, which is harm to a person.
  7. absent: Targeted nature explains motive and classification, not severity or future physical harm.
  8. absent: Ensure accountability is about the investigation, not the hazard's consequences.
  9. present: Due to the targeted nature of the message and intent to intimidate states the harm the writing was meant to cause.
  10. absent: Naming a hate crime does not by itself convey how serious the effects are.
  11. absent: The text never says the act is dangerous or may cause injury.
  12. absent: Whiteboard writing is the crime itself, not an extra impact clause.
  13. present: Intent to intimidate is stated harm, not merely a title word.
  14. absent: Impact fails because only the crime name and a description of the epithet appear.
  15. absent: No destructive, damaging, or life threatening wording is used.
  16. present: Race-based hate crime classification implies community harm beyond ordinary graffiti.
  17. absent: Property writing here is how intimidation is named, not a separate severity statement.
  18. absent: Nothing tells readers the incident could be harmful beyond the label hate crime.
  19. absent: Consequences such as injury or further attacks are not stated.
  20. present: Bias-motivated intimidation of a resident is stated harm to a person in housing.
  21. absent: Without words like dangerous or may cause harm, impact is not met.
  22. absent: Investigating to identify those responsible does not describe the hazard's effects.
  23. present: Targeted intimidation of a resident by a racial epithet is clearly implied psychological harm.
  24. absent: Intimidation based on race is the Clery crime name, which is hazard not impact.
  25. present: Intent to intimidate plus a racial epithet on a bedroom door is stated harm to the occupant.