Skip to content
Campus Alert Archive
WSU

911 outage with alternate emergency number

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
WAinfrastructureemergency notificationhigh confidence

WSU posted that 911 serving Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow was out and to call 509-332-2521 for emergency assistance, then said 911 service had been reestablished.

Alerts
2
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Washington State University
Public R1 · WA
All WSU cases →
WSU Alert
Official alert policy
Read when and how WSU says it will use WSU Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages in sequence · 2 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatim148 chars
911 servicing Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho is currently experiencing an outage. If you require emergency assistance, call 509-332-2521.
Dual independent WP REST fetch 2026-08-24. sha256 9379b5c18d466e476015d1bc5c5769a5163fb145c70b8f0c1654b7e59d641b7b. Original outage paragraph on the edited post (restore sentence is sequence 2). SPN 429.
ALL CLEAREmail
Verified verbatim71 chars
UPDATE: 911 services have been reestablished. Thanks for your patience.
Dual independent WP REST fetch 2026-08-24. sha256 19d817ef165d30d4b98d11325272ce34dbec3a029df243db38a2e26392c64341. UPDATE paragraph on the same post. SPN 429.
Message elements

How the first alert is built

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.

911 servicing Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho is currently experiencing an outage. If you require emergency assistance, call 509-332-2521.

  • Sourceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    The outage paragraph does not name WSU, a branded signature, or a sending agency.

    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. absent: This pass finds no a sender name, branded signature, or named agency anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
    2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    3. absent: The message never supplies a sender name, branded signature, or named agency, which this rubric requires.
    4. absent: I vote absent because a sender name, branded signature, or named agency is not in the transmitted text.
    5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a sender name, branded signature, or named agency after reading the whole product.
    8. absent: A recipient would not learn a sender name, branded signature, or named agency from this text.
    9. absent: The element fails: a sender name, branded signature, or named agency does not appear.
    10. absent: I cannot mark present without a sender name, branded signature, or named agency, and it is not there.
    11. absent: This independent pass sees no a sender name, branded signature, or named agency to quote.
    12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a sender name, branded signature, or named agency unspecified.
    15. absent: Absent vote: a sender name, branded signature, or named agency would have to be invented.
    16. absent: This reviewer looked for a sender name, branded signature, or named agency and did not find it.
    17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    18. absent: Without a sender name, branded signature, or named agency in the wording, the element is missing.
    19. absent: Present would need a sender name, branded signature, or named agency; that language is not used.
    20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a sender name, branded signature, or named agency.
    21. absent: The alert does not identify a sender name, branded signature, or named agency in any sentence.
    22. absent: Missing a sender name, branded signature, or named agency is the reason for the absent vote.
    23. absent: This pass will not infer a sender name, branded signature, or named agency from neighboring facts.
    24. absent: No quoted span equals a sender name, branded signature, or named agency, so absent.
    25. absent: Independent judgment: a sender name, branded signature, or named agency is not on the page.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    a 911 outage is a specific named disruption of emergency calling.

    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 deciding words are "an outage", so this element is present.
    2. present: This read treats "an outage" as enough to mark the element present.
    3. present: Quoted evidence "an outage" is the specific language that carries the element.
    4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "an outage".
    5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "an outage" in the body.
    6. present: The message supplies "an outage", which satisfies the element on this pass.
    7. present: On this independent read, "an outage" is the hook that makes the element present.
    8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "an outage".
    9. present: A first-time reader would see "an outage" and know the element is there.
    10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "an outage".
    11. present: The body names it with "an outage", so the vote is present.
    12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "an outage".
    13. present: Because the alert says "an outage", the element is not missing.
    14. present: The quoted span "an outage" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
    15. present: Present: "an outage" is in the transmitted text.
    16. present: I am scoring present after locating "an outage" in the message.
    17. present: The element is carried by "an outage" rather than by implication alone.
    18. present: Direct language "an outage" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
    19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "an outage" as the present cue.
    20. present: This reviewer finds "an outage" and therefore records present.
    21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "an outage".
    22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "an outage".
    23. present: From the four corners of the message, "an outage" establishes the element.
    24. present: I quote "an outage" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
    25. present: Independent judgment: "an outage" is on the page, so present.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho are named places.

    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 deciding words are "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho", so this element is present.
    2. present: This read treats "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" as enough to mark the element present.
    3. present: Quoted evidence "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is the specific language that carries the element.
    4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" in the body.
    6. present: The message supplies "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho", which satisfies the element on this pass.
    7. present: On this independent read, "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is the hook that makes the element present.
    8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    9. present: A first-time reader would see "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" and know the element is there.
    10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    11. present: The body names it with "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho", so the vote is present.
    12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    13. present: Because the alert says "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho", the element is not missing.
    14. present: The quoted span "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
    15. present: Present: "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is in the transmitted text.
    16. present: I am scoring present after locating "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" in the message.
    17. present: The element is carried by "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" rather than by implication alone.
    18. present: Direct language "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
    19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" as the present cue.
    20. present: This reviewer finds "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" and therefore records present.
    21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho".
    23. present: From the four corners of the message, "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" establishes the element.
    24. present: I quote "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
    25. present: Independent judgment: "Whitman County, Pullman, and Moscow Idaho" is on the page, so present.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Recipients who need emergency assistance are told to call 509-332-2521.

    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 deciding words are "call 509-332-2521", so this element is present.
    2. present: This read treats "call 509-332-2521" as enough to mark the element present.
    3. present: Quoted evidence "call 509-332-2521" is the specific language that carries the element.
    4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "call 509-332-2521".
    5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "call 509-332-2521" in the body.
    6. present: The message supplies "call 509-332-2521", which satisfies the element on this pass.
    7. present: On this independent read, "call 509-332-2521" is the hook that makes the element present.
    8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "call 509-332-2521".
    9. present: A first-time reader would see "call 509-332-2521" and know the element is there.
    10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "call 509-332-2521".
    11. present: The body names it with "call 509-332-2521", so the vote is present.
    12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "call 509-332-2521".
    13. present: Because the alert says "call 509-332-2521", the element is not missing.
    14. present: The quoted span "call 509-332-2521" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
    15. present: Present: "call 509-332-2521" is in the transmitted text.
    16. present: I am scoring present after locating "call 509-332-2521" in the message.
    17. present: The element is carried by "call 509-332-2521" rather than by implication alone.
    18. present: Direct language "call 509-332-2521" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
    19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "call 509-332-2521" as the present cue.
    20. present: This reviewer finds "call 509-332-2521" and therefore records present.
    21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "call 509-332-2521".
    22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "call 509-332-2521".
    23. present: From the four corners of the message, "call 509-332-2521" establishes the element.
    24. present: I quote "call 509-332-2521" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
    25. present: Independent judgment: "call 509-332-2521" is on the page, so present.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    currently experiencing is an explicit recency cue.

    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 deciding words are "currently experiencing", so this element is present.
    2. present: This read treats "currently experiencing" as enough to mark the element present.
    3. present: Quoted evidence "currently experiencing" is the specific language that carries the element.
    4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "currently experiencing".
    5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "currently experiencing" in the body.
    6. present: The message supplies "currently experiencing", which satisfies the element on this pass.
    7. present: On this independent read, "currently experiencing" is the hook that makes the element present.
    8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "currently experiencing".
    9. present: A first-time reader would see "currently experiencing" and know the element is there.
    10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "currently experiencing".
    11. present: The body names it with "currently experiencing", so the vote is present.
    12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "currently experiencing".
    13. present: Because the alert says "currently experiencing", the element is not missing.
    14. present: The quoted span "currently experiencing" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
    15. present: Present: "currently experiencing" is in the transmitted text.
    16. present: I am scoring present after locating "currently experiencing" in the message.
    17. present: The element is carried by "currently experiencing" rather than by implication alone.
    18. present: Direct language "currently experiencing" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
    19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "currently experiencing" as the present cue.
    20. present: This reviewer finds "currently experiencing" and therefore records present.
    21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "currently experiencing".
    22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "currently experiencing".
    23. present: From the four corners of the message, "currently experiencing" establishes the element.
    24. present: I quote "currently experiencing" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
    25. present: Independent judgment: "currently experiencing" is on the page, so present.
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Naming the outage is the hazard; there is no extra severity language such as dangerous.

    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: This pass finds no a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
    2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    3. absent: The message never supplies a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage, which this rubric requires.
    4. absent: I vote absent because a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage is not in the transmitted text.
    5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage after reading the whole product.
    8. absent: A recipient would not learn a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage from this text.
    9. absent: The element fails: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage does not appear.
    10. absent: I cannot mark present without a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage, and it is not there.
    11. absent: This independent pass sees no a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage to quote.
    12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage unspecified.
    15. absent: Absent vote: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage would have to be invented.
    16. absent: This reviewer looked for a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage and did not find it.
    17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    18. absent: Without a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage in the wording, the element is missing.
    19. absent: Present would need a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage; that language is not used.
    20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage.
    21. absent: The alert does not identify a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage in any sentence.
    22. absent: Missing a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage is the reason for the absent vote.
    23. absent: This pass will not infer a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage from neighboring facts.
    24. absent: No quoted span equals a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage, so absent.
    25. absent: Independent judgment: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the outage is not on the page.

Coded by SuperGrok Heavy 4.5

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

WSU posted the notice on alert.wsu.edu. High-wind warning and Aug 28 2025 CUB swatting posts on the same site remain queued.
Analysis

Key Findings

911 serving Pullman and Whitman County was out; callers were directed to 509-332-2521.
A same-day update said 911 service had been reestablished.
Outcome
911 service restored the same day.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Washington State University: 911 outage with alternate emergency number." Incident of June 15, 2026. Added August 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/washington-state-university-911-outage-2026-06-15/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
public-r1washingtonwsuinfrastructureemergency-notification2026
Added August 2026Updated August 2026Via ingestion