Electric scooter taken from a Pepper Canyon apartment common area

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: Header names UC San Diego Police Department as the issuing agency.
  2. present: UC San Diego Police Department is identified as the sender throughout the notice.
  3. present: The message originates from the UC San Diego Police Department.
  4. present: Authorship is explicit because UC San Diego Police Department issued the warning.
  5. present: UC SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT appears as the source line of the alert.
  6. present: The Clery timely warning is sent by UC San Diego Police Department.
  7. present: Sender credit belongs to the UC San Diego Police Department in the byline.
  8. present: Police of UC San Diego are named as both investigator and message author.
  9. present: The issuing body is UC San Diego Police Department, not an unnamed office.
  10. present: From line and signature identify UC San Diego Police as the communicator.
  11. present: UC San Diego Police Department is the stated source of this timely warning.
  12. present: The alert is attributable to UC San Diego Police, which also asks for tips.
  13. present: EH&S is only a question contact, while UC San Diego Police sent the warning.
  14. present: The header and body name the UC San Diego Police Department as the agency issuing the warning.
  15. present: UC San Diego Police Department appears as the sender at the top and as the investigating unit.
  16. present: The message is clearly attributed to campus police at UC San Diego.
  17. present: Authorship is explicit because UC San Diego Police Department signs the alert and asks for tips.
  18. present: Campus police are identified as the source of this timely warning.
  19. present: The issuing body is the UC San Diego Police Department throughout the first burst.
  20. present: Sender identity is the UC San Diego Police Department, addressed to academics, staff, and students.
  21. present: Police at UC San Diego are named as both reporter and investigator, making the sender clear.
  22. present: The opening line attributes the notice to the UC San Diego Police Department.
  23. present: Tip contact lines and the masthead both identify campus police as the sender.
  24. present: UC San Diego Police Department is the stated origin of this timely warning.
  25. present: The agency that sends the alert is named as the UC San Diego Police Department.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree burglary of an electric scooter from an apartment common area 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 warning specifies a burglary in which unknown suspect(s) stole property.
  2. present: Investigators classify the event as a burglary of an apartment common area.
  3. present: A timely warning for burglary describes unknown suspects taking a scooter.
  4. present: The hazard is a burglary involving unauthorized taking of a personal scooter.
  5. present: The specific threat is burglary after a reported theft was reclassified as such.
  6. present: Unknown suspect(s) committed burglary by removing an electric scooter.
  7. present: The alert warns of burglary rather than a vague unspecified crime.
  8. present: The threat is a completed burglary of a scooter from a shared apartment space.
  9. present: Burglary of an electric scooter is the concrete crime being warned about.
  10. present: A burglary with no forced entry still specifies the criminal act at issue.
  11. present: Suspects remain unknown, yet the threat type is burglary of a scooter.
  12. present: Title and body both name burglary as the specific threat to the community.
  13. present: The incident is a burglary involving unknown person(s) removing a scooter.
  14. present: The notice identifies a burglary in which an electric scooter was taken from an apartment common area.
  15. present: A specific burglary threat is stated, including theft of an electric scooter by unknown suspect(s).
  16. present: Timely Warning language plus the scooter theft specifies burglary as the threat type.
  17. present: The threat is a burglary of an electric scooter, not a vague unspecified crime.
  18. present: Investigation confirmed a burglary after an unknown person took a scooter from a common area.
  19. present: The alert specifies burglary as the crime and details theft of an electric scooter.
  20. present: Unknown suspect(s) committing burglary of a scooter is a concrete threat description.
  21. present: Burglary is the titled and narrated threat, including removal of an electric scooter.
  22. present: A burglary involving unknown person(s) stealing a scooter is the specific threat.
  23. present: The first burst states a confirmed burglary rather than an unnamed incident.
  24. present: The threat is specified as burglary of an electric scooter by unknown suspect(s).
  25. present: An investigated burglary with a taken electric scooter is a specific named threat.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree Pepper Canyon Apartments locates 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 crime is located at Pepper Canyon Apartments in a common area.
  2. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments is named as the site of the theft.
  3. present: Campus housing at Pepper Canyon Apartments is the stated location.
  4. present: The common area of an apartment at Pepper Canyon Apartments is specified.
  5. present: Place is fixed at Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  6. present: The apartment common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments is the crime scene.
  7. present: Geography is Pepper Canyon Apartments rather than a campus wide unknown.
  8. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments supplies a specific on campus address context.
  9. present: The theft occurred at Pepper Canyon Apartments in a common living area.
  10. present: Location detail is the common area of Pepper Canyon Apartments housing.
  11. present: Readers can map the event to Pepper Canyon Apartments on campus.
  12. present: Where is answered by Pepper Canyon Apartments and its apartment common area.
  13. present: The scene is the common area of Pepper Canyon Apartments at UC San Diego.
  14. present: The crime is placed at Pepper Canyon Apartments on the UC San Diego campus.
  15. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments is given as the location of the incident.
  16. present: Readers are told the burglary occurred in the common area of an apartment at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  17. present: A named residential site, Pepper Canyon Apartments, supplies the where.
  18. present: The scene is localized to Pepper Canyon Apartments rather than campus at large only.
  19. present: Location is given as the common area of a residence at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
  20. present: Pepper Canyon Apartments is the named place where the burglary happened.
  21. present: The apartment complex name and common area together specify where it occurred.
  22. present: UC San Diego Pepper Canyon Apartments is the geographic anchor.
  23. present: The burglary site is Pepper Canyon Apartments, including a residence common area.
  24. present: Where is answered with Pepper Canyon Apartments on the La Jolla campus context.
  25. present: The incident location is the common area at Pepper Canyon Apartments.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree the remainder tells recipients to lock doors 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: The remainder tells people to lock doors and windows and to call 911.
  2. present: Protective steps include leaving if possible, locking in place, and dialing 911.
  3. present: Readers are instructed to secure windows and doors and to contact 911.
  4. present: General prevention text directs locking entries and calling or texting 911.
  5. present: If someone is inside a residence, people are told to flee or lock down and call 911.
  6. present: Lock windows and doors and call 911 for burglary or suspicious activity.
  7. present: Remainder guidance to lock openings and reach 911 meets the instruction test.
  8. present: Recipients get lock, leave, shelter, and 911 directions in the remainder.
  9. present: People are told to keep doors locked and to call 911 if they cannot leave.
  10. present: Campus members are directed to lock windows, report suspects, and use 911.
  11. present: If a burglar is found inside, leave if possible then call or text 911.
  12. present: Prevention remainder counts because it orders locks and 911 reporting.
  13. present: Instructions to lock failed doors via housing and to call 911 protect recipients.
  14. present: Remainder text tells readers to leave, lock in, and call or text 911 if they find someone inside.
  15. present: Protective steps in the remainder include locking doors and windows and contacting 911.
  16. present: If victimized or if an intruder is found, recipients are instructed to get to safety and call 911.
  17. present: Lock advice and 911 or text-to-police instructions in the remainder count as protective guidance.
  18. present: Recipients are told to secure doors and windows and to call 911 for suspicious activity or an intruder.
  19. present: General remainder instructions to leave, lock, light the space, and call 911 are protective.
  20. present: The remainder lock and 911 guidance gives recipients actions to protect themselves.
  21. present: Readers are directed to flee if possible, hide if not, lock openings, and reach 911.
  22. present: Protective instruction is present via remainder orders to lock, go to a safe area, and call 911.
  23. present: Housing lock repair numbers plus 911 and lock-up advice still count as protective instruction.
  24. present: Recipients get self-protection steps: leave, shelter in place, lock doors and windows, and call 911.
  25. present: Remainder lock and 911 content supplies a protective instruction to the campus audience.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree January 25, 2025 from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM and the January 28 report 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 burglary is dated January 25, 2025 between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
  2. present: Police received the report on January 28, 2025 after a January 25 incident.
  3. present: A one hour window on January 25, 2025 supplies when the burglary occurred.
  4. present: Recency is given by the January 25 evening hours and the January 30 notice date.
  5. present: Times include 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM on January 25 and a January 28 report.
  6. present: The incident window is January 25, 2025 from about 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
  7. present: Clock times and calendar dates pin the burglary to a recent evening hour.
  8. present: January 25, 2025 between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM is a clear when stamp.
  9. present: The notice of January 30 recounts a January 25 burglary reported January 28.
  10. present: Approximate 7:59 AM on January 28 marks when police received the online report.
  11. present: The burglary happened in a defined hour on January 25, 2025.
  12. present: When is answered with January 25 evening hours plus later report timestamps.
  13. present: Dates of January 25, 28, and 30 together show a recent, time stamped event.
  14. present: The burglary is dated between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on January 25, 2025, with a report time on January 28.
  15. present: Recency is shown through the January 25 incident window and the January 28, 2025, 7:59 AM report.
  16. present: Clock times and calendar dates pin both the crime and the later police report.
  17. present: The burglary window on January 25, 2025, and the January 30 issuance date establish when.
  18. present: Approximate times for the 5 to 6 PM burglary and the later online report satisfy recency.
  19. present: Dated events on January 25 and January 28, 2025, plus the January 30 header, mark timing.
  20. present: The crime is timed to a one hour span on January 25, 2025, which is recent relative to the notice.
  21. present: A report received at about 7:59 AM on January 28, 2025, plus the earlier crime hours, give when.
  22. present: Calendar dates and clock times for both the burglary and the police intake show recency.
  23. present: January 25, 2025, evening hours are given for when the scooter was taken.
  24. present: The warning supplies both the crime interval and the later report timestamp, so when is present.
  25. present: Times of occurrence on January 25, 2025, and reporting on January 28, 2025, satisfy the when element.
• Impactpresent13/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 13 of 25 treat the taken electric scooter as stated property harm. Twelve treat that wording as restating burglary.

  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: Taking the reporting party's electric scooter is stated property harm.
  2. present: Loss of the electric scooter documents actual property damage from the crime.
  3. present: The stolen electric scooter counts as property harm beyond naming burglary.
  4. present: Property harm is shown because the suspect took an electric scooter.
  5. present: Severity includes theft of an electric scooter from the apartment common area.
  6. present: An electric scooter being taken is a concrete property consequence.
  7. present: Property harm is present because the scooter was actually taken.
  8. present: Naming burglary alone would fail, but the taken scooter is property harm.
  9. present: Consequences include loss of the reporting party's electric scooter.
  10. present: The scooter theft is property harm, not a hazard label with no outcome.
  11. present: Taken property, an electric scooter, supplies severity beyond the crime name.
  12. present: Someone lost an electric scooter, which is a realized property injury.
  13. present: Property harm is coded because the electric scooter was taken from the apartment.
  14. absent: Calling the event a burglary and noting a stolen scooter names the hazard without added injury, weapons, or harm language.
  15. absent: No consequence or severity beyond the burglary label is described, and forced entry is even denied.
  16. absent: Property loss restates the burglary itself and does not add severity such as injury or an armed actor.
  17. absent: Suspect not in custody and no description do not substitute for stated consequences or severity.
  18. absent: Naming burglary alone does not meet the consequences bar, and no harm outcome is described.
  19. absent: Absence of forced entry and lack of injury or weapon facts leave severity unstated.
  20. absent: The writeup reports a theft event without describing victim harm, danger level, or other fallout.
  21. absent: Hazard naming without injury, weapons, or risk language scores no for consequences.
  22. absent: Stolen property restates the offense and does not add a separate severity or consequence claim.
  23. absent: Nothing in the text describes injuries, ongoing danger, or other severity beyond the burglary word.
  24. absent: No forced entry and no custody status comments do not equal stated consequences or severity.
  25. absent: The hazard is named as burglary, which by itself does not code as consequences or severity.