Encampment on Dunn Meadow cleared; 56 arrested over two days

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.

• Sourceabsent10/25

  Final assessment

  A majority found no specific sender or office named, just a generic address to 'IUB Community'; a sizable minority read the institutional framing as sufficient identification, but the stronger read is that no specific issuing authority is named.

  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: Addressed to "IUB Community" but the sender/title is not named in the text.
  2. absent: No specific official or department signs or is identified as issuing this letter.
  3. absent: No specific sender identified, addressed generically 'Dear Members of the IUB Community'
  4. present: 'IUB Community' and institutional voice identify Indiana University as sender
  5. absent: No specific sender name or agency identified beyond referencing 'IUB Community' generically.
  6. absent: No specific sender identified, generic 'we'
  7. absent: Addressed 'Dear Members of the IUB Community' but no specific issuing office/authority named
  8. present: Addressed from 'the IUB Community' referencing Indiana University Bloomington leadership.
  9. present: 'IUB Community' and 'Indiana University' identify the sender.
  10. present: Addressed from IUB community leadership.
  11. absent: No specific sender identified, addresses 'IUB Community' generally without naming issuer.
  12. absent: Addressed from 'the IUB Community' generally with no named issuing official or department.
  13. absent: No specific sender/authority identified, uses 'we' unattributed.
  14. absent: No specific sender/authority named, addressed to 'IUB Community' generically.
  15. present: Addressed from 'IUB Community' leadership, implying institutional authority.
  16. present: Addressed from IUB leadership context, 'IUB Community' letter implies institutional sender.
  17. present: Addressed from IUB leadership implied issuer.
  18. present: Addressed from 'IUB Community' leadership, implied university authority
  19. absent: addressed as from IUB community leadership, but no specific title/name or agency stated
  20. absent: Addressed to 'IUB Community' but no specific sender/authority named.
  21. present: Addressed from 'IUB Community' leadership, implying university as issuer
  22. absent: no specific sender identified, generic 'we'
  23. absent: No specific sender/authority identified, addressed 'Dear Members of IUB Community'.
  24. absent: Addressed 'Dear Members of the IUB Community' but no clear signed authority in the excerpt.
  25. present: Addressed to the 'IUB Community' referencing Indiana University.
• Hazardabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Nearly all reads agree only vague 'encampments' and general 'threats of violence' are referenced without naming a specific current 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: Only vaguely references "threats of violence" in general terms without naming a specific ongoing threat.
  2. absent: References 'encampments' and general 'threats of violence' without naming a specific hazard.
  3. absent: No specific threat named, only general 'encampments' concern
  4. absent: 'encampments' and 'threats of violence' referenced generally, no specific current threat named
  5. absent: No specific ongoing threat named, discusses encampments generally.
  6. absent: No specific hazard named, discusses encampments generically
  7. absent: 'encampments' described as a concern but no specific threat named
  8. absent: Discusses encampments and a national movement generally, no specific hazard named.
  9. present: Names 'encampments and occupy universities' as the situation.
  10. absent: No specific threat named, discusses encampments generally.
  11. absent: No specific hazard named, discusses encampments generally.
  12. absent: Discusses encampments generally, not a specific named threat.
  13. absent: No specific hazard named, only vague references to 'threats of violence' by others potentially.
  14. absent: 'un-regulated encampments' is not a specific acute hazard.
  15. absent: Only vague 'encampments' and 'threats of violence' mentioned generally, no specific threat.
  16. absent: 'encampments' generically described, no specific immediate threat named.
  17. absent: 'encampments' and 'threats of violence' referenced generically, no specific named hazard event.
  18. absent: Only vague reference to 'encampments' and 'threats of violence', no specific threat named
  19. absent: 'encampments' referenced generally, no specific threat named
  20. absent: Describes 'encampments' generally, no specific named threat.
  21. absent: Only 'encampments' and vague 'threats of violence' referenced generically
  22. absent: 'encampments' described broadly, no specific safety hazard named
  23. absent: No specific threat named, discusses encampments generally.
  24. absent: Only vague references to 'encampments' and 'threats of violence' without naming a specific current threat.
  25. absent: 'Encampments' and 'threats of violence' referenced vaguely, no specific event named.
• Locationpresent17/25

  Final assessment

  A clear majority credits the generic reference to 'campus' as location information, though a meaningful minority felt this was too vague to count.

  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: References "our campus" generally.
  2. present: References 'our campus' generally.
  3. present: 'campus' mentioned generally
  4. present: 'campus' referenced generally
  5. present: References 'campus'.
  6. absent: No specific campus location named
  7. present: 'our campus'
  8. present: References 'our campus' generally.
  9. present: 'our campus' named.
  10. absent: No specific location given.
  11. present: 'campus' referenced generally.
  12. absent: No specific campus location is named.
  13. present: 'campus' mentioned generally.
  14. present: 'our campus' referenced generally.
  15. present: 'our campus' referenced generally.
  16. absent: No specific location given, only general campus reference.
  17. present: 'campus' referenced.
  18. present: 'campus' referenced generally
  19. absent: only 'our campus' generally referenced
  20. present: References 'our campus'.
  21. present: 'campus' referenced
  22. absent: no specific location on campus given
  23. present: 'our campus'.
  24. absent: No specific location given, only general 'campus'.
  25. absent: No specific place named, only general campus references.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that no protective action is instructed.

  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 to recipients
  8. absent: No protective action is instructed to recipients.
  9. absent: No direct 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.
  13. absent: No protective action instructed.
  14. absent: No protective action instructed to recipients.
  15. absent: No protective action instructed.
  16. absent: No protective action instructed.
  17. absent: No instructed protective action.
  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.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that 'over the last several days' is too vague to count as a specific time or date.

  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: No clock time or date is given, only "the last several days."
  2. absent: No clock time or date is given, only 'over the last several days'.
  3. absent: No specific date/time given
  4. absent: no specific clock time or date given, only 'over the last several days'
  5. absent: No specific clock time or date given.
  6. absent: No specific time given
  7. absent: No specific clock time or date given
  8. absent: No specific date or clock time given, only 'over the last several days'.
  9. absent: No specific time given, only 'over the last several days'.
  10. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, no specific date.
  11. absent: 'last several days' is vague, no specific date.
  12. absent: Only 'over the last several days,' too vague to count.
  13. absent: 'Over the last several days' is vague, no specific date given.
  14. absent: No specific time or date given, only 'last several days'.
  15. absent: No specific time or date given.
  16. absent: No specific date/time given, only 'over the last several days'.
  17. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, no specific time/date.
  18. absent: No specific time given, only 'last several days'
  19. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, no specific date
  20. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, not a specific time.
  21. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, no specific time
  22. absent: 'over the last several days' is vague, no specific date/time
  23. absent: No specific time given.
  24. absent: No clock time or date given.
  25. absent: Only vague 'over the last several days'.
• Impactabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Nearly all reads found no stated concrete consequence, only general safety concern language; one read credited the 'magnets for threats of violence' phrase as impact, but the majority view 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 specific potential harm.
  2. absent: No specific statement of harm or consequence.
  3. absent: No stated consequence, only general safety concerns
  4. absent: 'threats of violence' vaguely referenced but no explicit consequence stated
  5. absent: No consequence stated to recipients.
  6. absent: No stated harm/consequence
  7. absent: No stated concrete harm, only general concern language
  8. absent: No stated consequence or severity is conveyed.
  9. present: States encampments 'become magnets for those making threats of violence'.
  10. absent: No stated hazard consequence, just concerns about resources.
  11. absent: No stated consequence or severity beyond concern language.
  12. absent: No statement of concrete potential harm.
  13. absent: No stated consequence or severity to recipients.
  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 explicit stated consequence beyond general concern.
  18. absent: No stated consequence
  19. absent: no stated concrete harm, only general safety concerns
  20. absent: Vague reference to 'threats of violence' but no explicit stated consequence to recipients.
  21. absent: No specific stated consequence or danger described
  22. absent: vague 'threats of violence' concern, not a stated concrete consequence
  23. absent: No stated consequence/harm.
  24. absent: No stated consequence or severity, only general concern language.
  25. absent: No stated consequence beyond general safety concerns.