Email delivery delay

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 at 25 of 25: "UW Information Technology engineers" and "UW-IT" are named as working the fault with the vendor, identifying the office issuing the updates.

  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: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the reporting and repairing body.
  2. present: UW Information Technology and the University of Washington are identified as the source.
  3. present: "UW-IT" and "UW Information Technology engineers" are named as the reporting body.
  4. present: UW-IT and "UW Information Technology engineers" are named as the reporting authority.
  5. present: "UW Information Technology engineers" and "UW-IT" identify who is reporting and fixing it.
  6. present: "UW Information Technology engineers" and "UW-IT" are named as the reporting and responding body.
  7. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the responding technical authority.
  8. present: UW Information Technology and the University of Washington are identified as reporting and fixing the issue.
  9. present: Identifies "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" as working the problem.
  10. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as working the problem, identifying the sender.
  11. present: "UW Information Technology engineers" and "UW-IT" are named as the responding body.
  12. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the operators reporting the problem.
  13. present: "UW-IT" and "UW Information Technology engineers" are named as the parties reporting and fixing the issue.
  14. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the operators reporting the problem.
  15. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the responding institutional office.
  16. present: "UW Information Technology" and "The University of Washington email system" identify the sending institution.
  17. present: UW-IT and "The University of Washington email system" identify the sender and responsible unit.
  18. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the reporting and repairing body.
  19. present: UW-IT and "UW Information Technology engineers" are identified as the responders.
  20. present: "UW Information Technology engineers" and "UW-IT" identify the office issuing the notice.
  21. present: UW Information Technology and the University of Washington are named as reporting the issue.
  22. present: "UW-IT" and "The University of Washington email system" identify the sender and owner.
  23. present: "UW-IT" and "The University of Washington email system" identify the sending authority.
  24. present: "UW Information Technology" and "UW-IT" are named as the responding technical authority.
  25. present: "UW-IT" and "The University of Washington email system" identify the sending organization.
• Hazardpresent21/25

  Final assessment

  Present at 21 of 25: the problem is specified as "a technical issue" delaying "inbound and outbound email messages in the @UW.edu domain". Four reads held an email outage is not a threat.

  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 named problem is delayed inbound and outbound email "due to a technical issue".
  2. absent: An email delivery delay from a technical issue is not a specific safety hazard.
  3. present: It names a "technical issue" causing delayed inbound and outbound email, a specific system failure.
  4. present: The specific failure is named: a technical issue delaying inbound and outbound @UW.edu email.
  5. present: The hazard is specific: a technical fault delaying "inbound and outbound email messages".
  6. present: The trouble is specific: delayed inbound and outbound email from "a technical issue".
  7. present: The specific problem is named, a technical issue delaying inbound and outbound "@UW.edu" email.
  8. present: The specific problem is named: "a technical issue" causing delayed inbound and outbound @UW.edu email.
  9. present: Names a specific "technical issue" causing delayed inbound and outbound email.
  10. absent: An email "technical issue" causing delays is not a named threat to people or property.
  11. absent: A delay in email delivery from a "technical issue" is an outage, not a specific threat.
  12. present: The specific problem is named: "a delay in inbound and outbound email messages" from a technical issue.
  13. present: The specific problem is a technical fault delaying "inbound and outbound email messages in the @UW.edu domain".
  14. present: The issue is specified as a technical fault delaying inbound and outbound "@UW.edu" email.
  15. present: The trouble is specific: a technical issue delaying inbound and outbound "@UW.edu" email.
  16. present: The named problem is a technical fault causing delays "in inbound and outbound email messages in the @UW.edu domain".
  17. present: The trouble is specific: delayed inbound and outbound email from "a technical issue".
  18. present: The hazard is specified as a technical failure delaying inbound and outbound email.
  19. present: A "technical issue" causing delayed inbound and outbound email is specifically described.
  20. absent: A mail-delivery technical issue is not a threat of the kind the hazard element requires.
  21. present: A technical fault delaying inbound and outbound @UW.edu email is specifically named.
  22. present: The trouble is specified as a technical issue delaying "inbound and outbound email messages".
  23. present: The named issue is a technical fault delaying inbound and outbound email in the uw.edu domain.
  24. present: The specific failure is stated: "a technical issue" delaying inbound and outbound @UW.edu email.
  25. present: It names a "technical issue" causing delayed inbound and outbound email, a specific system failure.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25: the only locus given is "the @UW.edu domain", a mail system rather than a building, street or campus, so no physical place is identified.

  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: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced; no physical place or campus area is given.
  2. absent: Only the @UW.edu email domain is referenced; no physical place is given.
  3. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced; no building, street, or campus area is given.
  4. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no building, street, campus, or geographic place is given.
  5. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, a mail system rather than any physical place.
  6. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail domain rather than a place.
  7. absent: Only the email domain is identified; no building, street, campus or physical area is given.
  8. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no building, street, campus or physical area is given.
  9. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a system, not a physical place.
  10. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail system and not a physical place.
  11. absent: The only locus given is "the @UW.edu domain", which is not a physical place.
  12. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced; no campus, building or geographic place is given.
  13. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no physical place, building or campus is given.
  14. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no campus, building, or geographic place is given.
  15. absent: Only an email domain and systems are referenced, never a building, street or campus area.
  16. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no building, street, campus or physical area is mentioned.
  17. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail domain, not a campus or place.
  18. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced; no building, campus, or physical area is given.
  19. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced; no physical place or campus is given.
  20. absent: Only "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail system, not a physical place.
  21. absent: Only an email domain is referenced; no building, street, campus or physical area is given.
  22. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail domain rather than a physical place.
  23. absent: Only a mail domain is referenced; no building, street or physical campus area is given.
  24. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail system, not a physical place.
  25. absent: Only the "@UW.edu domain" is referenced, which is a mail namespace and not a physical place.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present at 25 of 25: recipients are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues until this incident is fully resolved".

  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: Readers are advised to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  2. present: It advises using alternative methods of communication for time sensitive issues.
  3. present: It advises readers to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  4. present: It advises readers to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  5. present: Readers are advised to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  6. present: Users are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  7. present: Users are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  8. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  9. present: Advises readers to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  10. present: Users are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  11. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  12. present: It advises readers to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  13. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  14. present: Users are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  15. present: Users are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  16. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  17. present: Users are advised to "consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  18. present: "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues" tells readers what to do.
  19. present: Users are advised to "consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  20. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues."
  21. present: Users are advised to use alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues.
  22. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  23. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  24. present: Readers are told to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
  25. present: Readers are advised to "Consider using alternative methods of communication for time-sensitive issues".
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present at 25 of 25: every entry carries a clock time, from "7:10 a.m." to "UPDATE 4:25 p.m.", plus the loss window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".

  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: Updates carry clock times such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and a window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  2. present: Timestamps such as 4:25 p.m., 10:40 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. are given.
  3. present: Multiple stamps appear, from "7:10 a.m." to "UPDATE 4:25 p.m.".
  4. present: Times are given throughout, such as "7:10 a.m." and the window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  5. present: Update times are given, such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  6. present: Successive stamps from "7:10 a.m." to "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." mark the timeline.
  7. present: Multiple stamps such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today" set the timeline.
  8. present: Repeated clock times appear, including "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and the window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  9. present: Carries a chain of clock times from "7:10 a.m." through "4:25 p.m."
  10. present: Updates are stamped from "7:10 a.m." through "4:25 p.m." with a recovery expected Wednesday morning.
  11. present: Times are precise, for example "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  12. present: Several clock times appear, such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  13. present: Times such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today" are given.
  14. present: The update stamps such as "4:25 p.m." and the window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today" give timing.
  15. present: Several clock references appear, including "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  16. present: Multiple clock times appear, such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and the window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  17. present: Updates carry clock times such as "4:25 p.m." and a window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  18. present: Multiple stamps, from "7:10 a.m." to "4:25 p.m.", track the outage.
  19. present: Update stamps such as "4:25 p.m." and "7:10 a.m." plus a Monday to today window appear.
  20. present: Timestamps run from "7:10 a.m." to "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." with a Monday to Tuesday window.
  21. present: It stamps updates at 7:10 a.m. through 4:25 p.m. and cites an 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. window.
  22. present: Repeated clock stamps appear, such as "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." and "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today".
  23. present: Update times such as "4:25 p.m." and the window "Between 8 p.m. on Monday and 2 a.m. today" are given.
  24. present: Repeated clock stamps, "UPDATE 4:25 p.m." down to "7:10 a.m.", plus the 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. window.
  25. present: Updates are stamped at "4:25 p.m.", "10:40 a.m.", "8:18 a.m." and "7:10 a.m."
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present at 25 of 25: the stated consequence is concrete, that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", with delivery significantly delayed.

  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: It warns that some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete consequence.
  2. present: It warns some emails may have been lost and are not recoverable, a stated consequence.
  3. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  4. present: It warns some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete consequence.
  5. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  6. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  7. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  8. present: It states that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete consequence.
  9. present: States some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a real loss to users.
  10. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete consequence.
  11. present: It warns "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  12. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  13. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  14. present: It warns "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  15. present: "Some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable" states a real consequence.
  16. present: It states a real consequence: "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  17. present: It warns "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  18. present: It states some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  19. present: It warns that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  20. present: It warns some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete stated loss.
  21. present: It states some emails may have been lost and are not recoverable, a concrete loss.
  22. present: It warns "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete consequence.
  23. present: It states that "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss.
  24. present: It states a real loss: "some emails to UW accounts may have been lost and are not recoverable".
  25. present: It states some emails "may have been lost and are not recoverable", a concrete loss consequence.