E-scooters taken near Muir College and Mandeville Center

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 UC San Diego Police Department is named as the sender.

  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: UC San Diego Police Department is named as the agency issuing the timely warning.
  2. present: The header identifies the UC San Diego Police Department as the sender.
  3. present: Source is present because the police department authors and signs the campus warning.
  4. present: Who sent it is clear from the UC San Diego Police Department letterhead and byline.
  5. present: The originating office is the UC San Diego Police Department.
  6. present: Senders are identified as campus police addressing academics, staff, and students.
  7. present: Authorship is attributed to the UC San Diego Police Department throughout the notice.
  8. present: The byline and closing address show University police as the communicating source.
  9. present: Presence of sender follows from the police department masthead and contact block.
  10. present: Who is speaking is the UC San Diego Police Department writing a Clery timely warning.
  11. present: The issuing party is campus police, which also lists its phone and tip portal.
  12. present: Source is scored present from the UC San Diego Police Department identification.
  13. present: From the opening line, UC San Diego Police Department is the office that sent the alert.
  14. present: Sender identified as the UC San Diego Police Department in the header so source is coded present.
  15. present: Authority line names the UC San Diego Police Department as the issuer of the timely warning so source is present.
  16. present: Sender identified as campus police in the title block and again in the investigation line so source is present.
  17. present: Authority line is the UC San Diego Police Department addressing academics, staff, and students so source is present.
  18. present: Sender identified as the UC San Diego Police Department which asks for tips and is investigating so source is present.
  19. present: Authority line repeats UC San Diego Police as the body receiving reports and handling the case so source is present.
  20. present: Sender identified as university police in the Clery timely warning masthead so source is present.
  21. present: Authority line from University of California San Diego police makes the origin of the notice clear so source is present.
  22. present: Sender identified as the campus police department that wrote the Jeanne Clery timely warning so source is present.
  23. present: Authority line is explicit that UC San Diego Police Department issued this notice to the campus public so source is present.
  24. present: Sender identified as UC San Diego Police in the tip line, the byline, and the investigation close so source is present.
  25. present: Authority line opening the message is UC SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT so source is present.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree micromobility scooter theft is a specific named crime.

  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 hazard is specified as theft of electric scooters and other micromobility devices rather than a generic emergency.
  2. present: A concrete crime type, micromobility device theft treated as motor vehicle theft, is stated.
  3. present: Readers are told the threat is scooter and bicycle micromobility theft, which is a specific offense.
  4. present: Hazard coding is met by naming electric scooter micromobility theft instead of an unspecified emergency.
  5. present: Specific threat language covers stolen electric scooters, bicycles, and micromobility devices.
  6. present: The timely warning title and lead specify micromobility device theft as the threat.
  7. present: The crime named is theft of electric scooters and related micromobility vehicles.
  8. present: Hazard is a defined property crime, micromobility theft, not a vague campus emergency.
  9. present: A particular offense, motor micromobility device theft, is identified for the audience.
  10. present: Threat content names stolen electric scooters and bicycles as the specific problem.
  11. present: Specific threat coding holds because micromobility scooter theft is not a generic alert.
  12. present: The warning specifies ongoing micromobility device theft rather than an undefined emergency.
  13. present: The subject line and narrative pin the threat to electric scooter and bicycle theft.
  14. present: Threat named as theft of electric scooters and micromobility devices so the hazard is specific.
  15. present: Crime named is micromobility device theft treated as a motor vehicle offense so the hazard is specific.
  16. present: Crime named covers stolen electric scooters, bicycles, and other micromobility devices so the hazard is specific.
  17. present: Threat named as a timely warning for micromobility device theft so the hazard is specific.
  18. present: Threat named as suspects stealing micromobility devices with at least two people involved so the hazard is specific.
  19. present: Crime named in the subject and body is micromobility device theft of scooters and bikes so the hazard is specific.
  20. present: Threat named as ongoing stealing of electric scooters by more than one suspect so the hazard is specific.
  21. present: Crime named as motor vehicle micromobility theft of scooters and bicycles so the hazard is specific.
  22. present: Threat named with suspect clothing details still centers on theft of micromobility devices so the hazard is specific.
  23. present: Crime named for readers is theft of electric scooters called micromobility devices so the hazard is specific.
  24. present: Threat named as multiple suspects stealing micromobility devices across campus so the hazard is specific.
  25. present: Crime named in the subject Timely Warning Micromobility Device Theft so the hazard is specific.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree Muir College and Mandeville Center locate the event.

  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 April reports are sited near Muir College and Mandeville Center on the UC San Diego campus.
  2. present: Place is given as campus grounds around Muir College, Mandeville Center, and the campus at large.
  3. present: Where is answered with Muir College, Mandeville Center, and various locations spanning campus.
  4. present: The geography of the event is Muir College, Mandeville Center, and the broader campus.
  5. present: Location details point to Muir College, Mandeville Center, and campus wide theft sites.
  6. present: A place is reported near Muir College and Mandeville Center rather than left unnamed.
  7. present: Setting includes Muir College, Mandeville Center, and other campus areas.
  8. present: Readers are told the thefts occurred on UC San Diego grounds, including Muir and Mandeville.
  9. present: Where is coded from Muir College, Mandeville Center, and campus spanning reports.
  10. present: The incident map is Muir College, Mandeville Center, and various campus locations.
  11. present: Location is not omitted: Muir College, Mandeville Center, and the campus overall are named.
  12. present: Place names Muir College and Mandeville Center and notes thefts across campus.
  13. present: Setting is UC San Diego, especially near Muir College and Mandeville Center.
  14. present: Place given as near Muir College and Mandeville Center plus campus wide spots so location is coded present.
  15. present: Site named includes Muir College, Mandeville Center, and various areas spanning the campus so location is present.
  16. present: Place given as the Muir College and Mandeville Center vicinity on the UC San Diego grounds so location is present.
  17. present: Site named also lists the university address at 9500 Gilman Drive in La Jolla with the campus scene so location is present.
  18. present: Place given as on campus near Muir College and Mandeville Center and generally the entire campus so location is present.
  19. present: Site named starts at Muir College and Mandeville Center then widens to multiple campus zones so location is present.
  20. present: Place given as UC San Diego campus locations rather than an off campus city block so location is present.
  21. present: Site named for the April event is the area near Muir College and Mandeville Center so location is present.
  22. present: Place given as various areas on campus that generally span the entire campus so location is present.
  23. present: Site named in the first incident sentence is near Muir College and Mandeville Center so location is present.
  24. present: Place given for HDH lockers and transportation cages is multiple campus locations so location is present.
  25. present: Site named for the university is 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, with the Muir and Mandeville scene so location is present.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree recipients are told to lock devices, park in busy lighting, and call 9-1-1.

  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: Recipients are told to lock devices, park in busy well lit spots, and call 9-1-1 if a theft is in progress.
  2. present: Protective steps include using lockers or cages, photographing serial numbers, and installing tracking.
  3. present: Guidance tells people how to report in progress thefts and how to harden parking and locking habits.
  4. present: The body instructs witnesses to call 9-1-1 and owners to lock, light, and track their rides.
  5. present: Protective instruction is present in the lock, lighting, locker, cage, and 9-1-1 directions.
  6. present: People are directed to call police, lock e mobility devices, and use well lit busy parking.
  7. present: Self protection advice covers locking, lighting, lockers, cages, photos, and trackers.
  8. present: The message tells the community what to do if they witness theft or want to prevent the next one.
  9. present: Guidance appears in the 9-1-1 script, the nonemergency number, and the locking advice.
  10. present: Protective action language tells recipients to lock up, choose busy lighting, and call police.
  11. present: Instruction to recipients includes immediate 9-1-1 contact and routine device security steps.
  12. present: Readers receive actionable steps to report in progress theft and to secure e mobility devices.
  13. present: Protective guidance tells the community to lock, park in active lighting, and call 9-1-1 during a theft.
  14. present: Instruction is to call 911 if a theft is in progress, lock devices, and park in busy well lit areas so guidance is present.
  15. present: Action told to reader includes locking the device, calling police, and using lockers or cages so guidance is present.
  16. present: Action told to reader is to contact 911 with suspect and location details and to secure devices so guidance is present.
  17. present: Instruction is to report in progress thefts at once and to follow listed locking and parking steps so guidance is present.
  18. present: Action told to reader includes calling (858) 534-4357 after a loss and giving last seen time and tracking info so guidance is present.
  19. present: Instruction is to witness callers to give clothing, direction of travel, tools, and device description so guidance is present.
  20. present: Action told to reader includes always locking the device and choosing busy lighting and lockers so guidance is present.
  21. present: Instruction is also to photograph serial numbers and consider a tracking tag after a theft report so guidance is present.
  22. present: Action told to reader if they see suspicious activity is to call 911 immediately so guidance is present.
  23. present: Instruction is a set of prevention steps plus how to report if you are a victim so guidance is present.
  24. present: Action told to reader includes submitting an online tip or dialing the listed police number so guidance is present.
  25. present: Instruction is protective because readers are told how to lock, park, store, track, and report devices so guidance is present.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree April 2, 2025 at about 9:44 AM and the March 1-31 window supply time.

  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 notice timestamps the latest reports at about 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025 and cites March 1 to March 31 thefts.
  2. present: Clock time and calendar dates appear for both the April 2 incident and the March series.
  3. present: When is filled by the 9:44 AM April 2, 2025 receipt time plus the March 2025 date window.
  4. present: Recency is established with an exact morning time on April 2, 2025.
  5. present: The warning gives both the April 2 morning hour and the March 1 through March 31 span.
  6. present: Time of the reports is approximately 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025.
  7. present: Dates and a clock time mark when police received the April reports and when March thefts occurred.
  8. present: Temporal cues include April 2, 2025 at 9:44 AM and the full month of March 2025.
  9. present: The first burst supplies a recent date and approximate hour for the new reports.
  10. present: When is answered with April 2 morning timing and a March 1 to March 31 series window.
  11. present: Recency is present via 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025 plus the March reporting period.
  12. present: A dated hour for April 2 and a March date range give the timeline.
  13. present: The notice states that reports arrived about 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025.
  14. present: Clock cue is about 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025 when police took the reports so timing is present.
  15. present: When stated is the April 2 morning report time along with the March 1 to March 31 theft window so timing is present.
  16. present: Clock cue is the dated April 2, 2025 warning plus the approximate 9:44 AM receipt of reports so timing is present.
  17. present: When stated includes both the morning incident clock and the month long March cluster of thefts so timing is present.
  18. present: Clock cue is April 2, 2025 at approximately 9:44 AM for the latest reports so timing is present.
  19. present: When stated for the broader pattern is between March 1 and March 31, 2025 so timing is present.
  20. present: Clock cue for recency is the April 2, 2025 date line on the warning itself so timing is present.
  21. present: When stated is an approximate morning time stamp of 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025 so timing is present.
  22. present: Clock cue pairs the live April 2 report with a full March month of prior thefts so timing is present.
  23. present: When stated that police received reports at about 9:44 AM on April 2, 2025 so timing is present.
  24. present: Clock cue of recency is that this warning went out the same day as the April 2 reports so timing is present.
  25. present: When stated covers April 2, 2025 at 9:44 AM and the March 1 through 31 series so timing is present.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads find no stated consequence beyond naming theft of micromobility devices.

  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: Saying scooters were stolen names the crime but does not describe injuries, losses, or other severity.
  2. absent: No clause explains what harm follows for victims or how serious the outcome was beyond the theft label.
  3. absent: Impact is missing since the text never states consequences such as violence, injury, or dollar loss.
  4. absent: Severity stays unstated because theft is named without added consequence language.
  5. absent: Consequences are not coded because the hazard name is not paired with harm or gravity details.
  6. absent: Nothing describes resulting injury, financial damage, or other impacts beyond listing theft.
  7. absent: Impact fails because stating that devices were stolen only restates the hazard.
  8. absent: No sentence spells out how severe the outcome was or what victims suffered besides the theft itself.
  9. absent: Severity remains absent because the text does not add consequence details to the theft label.
  10. absent: Naming numerous thefts still does not state consequences or gravity beyond the crime type.
  11. absent: The writeup never explains injuries, weapons, dollar losses, or other impacts of the thefts.
  12. absent: Consequence language is missing, so impact cannot be scored from the hazard name alone.
  13. absent: Impact is absent because the message does not describe severity or aftermath beyond calling it theft.
  14. absent: Harm shown as the crime label theft only with no loss, injury, or severity outcome so impact is absent.
  15. absent: Consequence language never says what victims lose or how serious the harm is so impact is absent.
  16. absent: Harm shown as naming theft without any result such as dollar loss or physical danger so impact is absent.
  17. absent: Consequence language is missing because severity is not described beyond repeating the theft hazard so impact is absent.
  18. absent: Harm shown as theft of devices with no statement of injury, dollar damage, or other fallout so impact is absent.
  19. absent: Consequence language does not translate the theft into a concrete cost or safety outcome for readers so impact is absent.
  20. absent: Harm shown fails the test because saying theft names the hazard only and supplies no severity so impact is absent.
  21. absent: Consequence language about protecting themselves is purpose talk, not a described harm outcome, so impact is absent.
  22. absent: Harm shown as numerous thefts still counts as restating the crime, not an impact result, so impact is absent.
  23. absent: Consequence language never names injury, lost value, or other effects, and the hazard name alone scores 0.
  24. absent: Harm shown as not in custody implies risk but still does not state a consequence of the theft so impact is absent.
  25. absent: Consequence language is not there; the text names theft and stops short of saying what harm follows so impact is absent.