Police clear a protest encampment on the Green; 89 arrested including faculty

To check this alert, Claude (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.

• Sourceabsent11/25

  Final assessment

  A majority found no specific sender or authority named, just generic references to 'Dartmouth's policies'; a substantial minority credited the institutional framing as identifying Dartmouth as issuer, but the stronger read favors no specific named 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. absent: No sender name or title identifies who wrote this message.
  2. present: References 'Dartmouth's policies' and 'Dartmouth' repeatedly as the acting institution.
  3. absent: No specific sender or authority named, describes events in third person
  4. present: 'Dartmouth's' institutional voice identifies the sender
  5. absent: No sender identity or agency named, only referencing Dartmouth generically.
  6. present: 'Dartmouth's...policies' names the institution
  7. absent: No specific sender/authority named in text
  8. present: References 'Dartmouth's policies' and 'here' identifying the institution as issuer.
  9. present: 'Dartmouth's policies' identifies the institution.
  10. present: References Dartmouth's policies and police as authority.
  11. absent: No sender identified, refers to Dartmouth generically.
  12. absent: No named individual or department identifies the sender of this recap message.
  13. absent: No sender/authority named, uses 'Dartmouth's policies' abstractly.
  14. absent: No sender/authority explicitly named in this excerpt, generic 'Dartmouth's policies' reference.
  15. absent: No sender or issuing authority identified, narrative excerpt only.
  16. present: References 'Dartmouth's policies' implying institutional sender.
  17. absent: No sender identified in this excerpt, implied Dartmouth administration.
  18. present: 'Dartmouth's...policies' and implied university authority
  19. absent: no specific title or agency identified, only narrative description
  20. absent: No sender or authority explicitly named, references Dartmouth generically.
  21. present: References Dartmouth's policies and leadership as implied issuer
  22. absent: no sender named, generic institutional voice
  23. present: 'Dartmouth' referenced as the issuing institution/policy owner.
  24. absent: No specific named sender/authority in the excerpt, refers to 'Dartmouth's policies' generically.
  25. present: References 'Dartmouth's...policies' identifying the institution.
• Hazardabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Nearly all reads agree this describes a past protest removal without naming a specific ongoing safety hazard; one outlier treated the encampment itself as the named situation.

  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. absent: Describes a protest removal, naming no specific ongoing hazard.
  2. absent: Describes an encampment removal, not a specific hazard type.
  3. absent: No specific threat named, describes a protest removal
  4. absent: 'protest' and encampment removal are not a specific safety hazard
  5. absent: No ongoing threat named, describes a past protest removal.
  6. absent: No specific hazard, discusses protest/removal generically
  7. absent: 'protest' and 'encampment' not a named safety threat
  8. absent: Describes a protest removal generally, no specific hazard is named.
  9. present: Names 'Gaza Solidarity Encampment' protest as the situation.
  10. absent: No specific threat named, describes protest and arrests.
  11. absent: No specific hazard named, discusses protest removal.
  12. absent: Describes a protest encampment removal, not a physical hazard.
  13. absent: No specific ongoing hazard named, describes a past encampment removal.
  14. absent: No specific hazard, describes a past protest removal generically.
  15. absent: Only 'protest' and 'encampment' described, no specific threat.
  16. absent: 'protest'/'encampment' removal described, not a specific safety hazard.
  17. absent: 'Gaza Solidarity Encampment' protest is not a specific safety hazard.
  18. absent: Only vague reference to 'protest' and 'encampment', no specific threat named
  19. absent: describes a protest removal, not a specific hazard
  20. absent: Describes a past protest removal, no ongoing hazard named.
  21. absent: Only 'protest' and encampment referenced, no specific threat named
  22. absent: protest/encampment removal, not a specific safety hazard
  23. absent: No specific hazard, describes a protest removal generally.
  24. absent: Describes a protest removal, no active threat to safety named.
  25. absent: No specific ongoing threat named, describes a past protest removal.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that 'the Green' is named as the specific location.

  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: Names "the Green" as the location.
  2. present: Names 'the Green' as the location.
  3. present: 'the Green' given as location
  4. present: names 'the Green'
  5. present: References 'the Green'.
  6. present: 'the Green'
  7. present: 'the Green'
  8. present: Names 'the Green'.
  9. present: 'the Green' named.
  10. present: 'the Green' named.
  11. present: Names 'the Green'.
  12. present: Names 'the Green' as the location.
  13. present: 'the Green' named.
  14. present: 'the Green' gives location.
  15. present: 'the Green' referenced.
  16. present: 'the Green' named.
  17. present: 'the Green' referenced.
  18. present: 'the Green' named
  19. present: 'the Green'
  20. present: References 'the Green'.
  21. present: 'the Green' named as location
  22. present: 'the Green'
  23. present: 'the Green'.
  24. present: 'the Green' named as location.
  25. present: Names 'the Green'.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that no protective action is instructed to recipients.

  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: Gives no protective action instruction.
  2. absent: No protective action is instructed to recipients.
  3. absent: No protective action instructed
  4. absent: no protective action instruction given
  5. absent: No protective action instructed.
  6. absent: No protective action instructed
  7. absent: No instruction given
  8. absent: No protective action is instructed to recipients.
  9. absent: No instruction given to recipients.
  10. absent: No protective action instructed.
  11. absent: No protective action instructed.
  12. absent: No instruction telling recipients what to do currently.
  13. absent: No protective action instructed.
  14. absent: No protective action instructed.
  15. absent: No protective action instructed.
  16. absent: No protective action instructed.
  17. absent: No protective action instructed.
  18. absent: No protective action instructed
  19. absent: no protective action instructed
  20. absent: No protective action instructed.
  21. absent: No protective action instructed to recipients
  22. absent: no protective action instructed
  23. absent: No protective action instructed.
  24. absent: No protective action instructed.
  25. absent: No instruction telling recipients what to do.
• Timepresent22/25

  Final assessment

  A strong majority credits 'Last night' as conveying specific recency, with a few dissents calling it too vague for a real date or clock 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: References "Last night" as the timeframe.
  2. present: 'Last night' conveys a specific recency.
  3. present: 'Last night' conveys recency
  4. present: 'Last night' conveys recency
  5. present: States 'Last night'.
  6. present: 'Last night'
  7. absent: 'Last night' is vague, no clock time or date
  8. present: States 'Last night' as a recency marker.
  9. absent: 'Last night' is vague, no clock time or date.
  10. present: 'Last night' conveys recency.
  11. present: 'Last night' gives recency.
  12. present: States 'Last night' as a recency marker.
  13. present: 'Last night' gives recency.
  14. present: 'Last night' gives recency.
  15. present: 'Last night' gives recency.
  16. present: 'Last night' gives recency.
  17. present: 'Last night'.
  18. present: 'Last night' referenced
  19. present: 'Last night'
  20. present: 'Last night' conveys recency.
  21. present: 'Last night' gives recency
  22. present: 'Last night'
  23. present: 'Last night' referenced.
  24. absent: 'Last night' is vague recency, no specific date/time.
  25. present: States 'Last night'.
• Impactabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Nearly all reads found no stated concrete consequence; one read credited the 'increase safety risks' phrase as impact, but the majority prevails.

  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: No statement of potential harm.
  2. absent: No statement of harm or consequence.
  3. absent: No stated consequence
  4. absent: no stated concrete harm or severity
  5. absent: No consequence stated to recipients.
  6. absent: No stated harm/consequence
  7. absent: No stated harm or consequence
  8. absent: No stated consequence or severity is conveyed.
  9. present: States encampments 'increase safety risks to members of the community'.
  10. absent: No stated hazard consequence.
  11. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
  12. absent: No statement of concrete potential physical harm.
  13. absent: No stated consequence to safety.
  14. absent: No stated consequence or harm described.
  15. absent: No stated consequence or danger conveyed.
  16. absent: No stated consequence to people/property.
  17. absent: No stated consequence to safety.
  18. absent: No stated consequence
  19. absent: no stated harm or consequence to recipients
  20. absent: No stated harm or consequence.
  21. absent: No stated danger or consequence described
  22. absent: no stated consequence or danger described
  23. absent: No stated consequence/harm.
  24. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
  25. absent: No stated consequence or severity of the events.