No active shooter after CUB swatting call

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

  WSU Police is named as the confirming authority.

  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: The deciding words are "WSU Police", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "WSU Police" as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "WSU Police" is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "WSU Police".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "WSU Police" in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "WSU Police", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "WSU Police" is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "WSU Police".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "WSU Police" and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "WSU Police".
  11. present: The body names it with "WSU Police", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "WSU Police".
  13. present: Because the alert says "WSU Police", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "WSU Police" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "WSU Police" is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "WSU Police" in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "WSU Police" rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "WSU Police" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "WSU Police" as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "WSU Police" and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "WSU Police".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "WSU Police".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "WSU Police" establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "WSU Police" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "WSU Police" is on the page, so present.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  active shooter is a specific named hazard, even though it is reported as a swatting call.

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

  Final assessment

  the CUB is a named place.

  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 "the CUB", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "the CUB" as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "the CUB" is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "the CUB".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "the CUB" in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "the CUB", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "the CUB" is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "the CUB".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "the CUB" and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "the CUB".
  11. present: The body names it with "the CUB", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "the CUB".
  13. present: Because the alert says "the CUB", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "the CUB" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "the CUB" is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "the CUB" in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "the CUB" rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "the CUB" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "the CUB" as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "the CUB" and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "the CUB".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "the CUB".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "the CUB" establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "the CUB" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "the CUB" is on the page, so present.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  The text confirms there is no active shooter; it does not instruct recipients to take a protective 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: This pass finds no a protective-action instruction to the recipient anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
  2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  3. absent: The message never supplies a protective-action instruction to the recipient, which this rubric requires.
  4. absent: I vote absent because a protective-action instruction to the recipient is not in the transmitted text.
  5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a protective-action instruction to the recipient after reading the whole product.
  8. absent: A recipient would not learn a protective-action instruction to the recipient from this text.
  9. absent: The element fails: a protective-action instruction to the recipient does not appear.
  10. absent: I cannot mark present without a protective-action instruction to the recipient, and it is not there.
  11. absent: This independent pass sees no a protective-action instruction to the recipient to quote.
  12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a protective-action instruction to the recipient unspecified.
  15. absent: Absent vote: a protective-action instruction to the recipient would have to be invented.
  16. absent: This reviewer looked for a protective-action instruction to the recipient and did not find it.
  17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  18. absent: Without a protective-action instruction to the recipient in the wording, the element is missing.
  19. absent: Present would need a protective-action instruction to the recipient; that language is not used.
  20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  21. absent: The alert does not identify a protective-action instruction to the recipient in any sentence.
  22. absent: Missing a protective-action instruction to the recipient is the reason for the absent vote.
  23. absent: This pass will not infer a protective-action instruction to the recipient from neighboring facts.
  24. absent: No quoted span equals a protective-action instruction to the recipient, so absent.
  25. absent: Independent judgment: a protective-action instruction to the recipient is not on the page.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  The body has no clock time, date, or recency cue such as now.

  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. absent: This pass finds no a clock time, date, or recency cue anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
  2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  3. absent: The message never supplies a clock time, date, or recency cue, which this rubric requires.
  4. absent: I vote absent because a clock time, date, or recency cue is not in the transmitted text.
  5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a clock time, date, or recency cue after reading the whole product.
  8. absent: A recipient would not learn a clock time, date, or recency cue from this text.
  9. absent: The element fails: a clock time, date, or recency cue does not appear.
  10. absent: I cannot mark present without a clock time, date, or recency cue, and it is not there.
  11. absent: This independent pass sees no a clock time, date, or recency cue to quote.
  12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a clock time, date, or recency cue unspecified.
  15. absent: Absent vote: a clock time, date, or recency cue would have to be invented.
  16. absent: This reviewer looked for a clock time, date, or recency cue and did not find it.
  17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  18. absent: Without a clock time, date, or recency cue in the wording, the element is missing.
  19. absent: Present would need a clock time, date, or recency cue; that language is not used.
  20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  21. absent: The alert does not identify a clock time, date, or recency cue in any sentence.
  22. absent: Missing a clock time, date, or recency cue is the reason for the absent vote.
  23. absent: This pass will not infer a clock time, date, or recency cue from neighboring facts.
  24. absent: No quoted span equals a clock time, date, or recency cue, so absent.
  25. absent: Independent judgment: a clock time, date, or recency cue is not on the page.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Naming the shooter report is the hazard; no extra severity language such as dangerous is added.

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