A travel-registry check confirms no students abroad were caught in twin bombings

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.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: the message is addressed to 'Notre Dame students abroad' and signed by Notre Dame International program staff, clearly identifying the issuing office.

  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: Signed context implies Notre Dame's study abroad office (NDI) as sender; mentions 'U.S. Embassy in Brussels'.
  2. present: Sent from Notre Dame program staff and cites the 'U.S. Embassy in Brussels'.
  3. present: Signed context and 'Notre Dame' addressed as sender/institution.
  4. present: Signed via Notre Dame International program office, addressed to 'Notre Dame students abroad'.
  5. present: Signed context and 'NDI' program staff identify Notre Dame International as sender.
  6. present: Addressed from Notre Dame study abroad program to its students.
  7. present: Signed context and 'NDI personnel' plus Notre Dame program identify the sending office.
  8. present: Signed by Notre Dame program staff/gateway addressing 'Dear Notre Dame students'.
  9. present: Addressed by Notre Dame study abroad program ('Dear Notre Dame students abroad') and the U.S. Embassy.
  10. present: Notre Dame study abroad office ('NDI') is identified as the sender.
  11. present: Signed by Notre Dame's study abroad office and cites 'U.S. Embassy in Brussels' statement.
  12. present: Signed context implies Notre Dame study abroad office (NDI) as sender.
  13. present: Addressed from Notre Dame ND officials/program to 'Notre Dame students abroad'.
  14. present: Signed institutionally as from Notre Dame program/NDI staff addressing students.
  15. present: Addressed 'Dear Notre Dame students abroad' and signed by NDI personnel, naming the issuing office.
  16. present: Addressed by Notre Dame study abroad office ('Dyann Mawhorr', 'NDI online application system').
  17. present: Signed institutionally as Notre Dame's study abroad office/NDI addressing students.
  18. present: 'Dear Notre Dame students abroad' and NDI staff signature identify the sender.
  19. present: Signed context implies Notre Dame Global program office as sender to students abroad.
  20. present: Signed from Notre Dame study abroad program and cites U.S. Embassy.
  21. present: Signed context from Notre Dame study abroad program (NDI) addressed to 'Notre Dame students abroad'.
  22. present: Signed from Notre Dame's study abroad office ('Dear Notre Dame students abroad').
  23. present: Signed from Notre Dame's study abroad office/Gateway staff context, addressed to 'Notre Dame students'.
  24. present: Signed from Notre Dame program staff and cites the U.S. Embassy statement.
  25. present: Signed from Notre Dame study abroad program (NDI) referencing embassy and university.
• Hazardpresent23/25

  Final assessment

  Strong majority: the letter names 'the terrible events... in Brussels' i.e. the attacks, plus a Level 4 threat rating, as the specific hazard; two dissents found 'terrible events' too vague, but most reads accepted this as sufficiently specific given the attack context.

  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: References 'terrible events' as a Level 4 threat, specifically attacks in Brussels.
  2. present: References the 'terrible events...attacks' in Brussels and a 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  3. present: References 'terrible events' i.e. the Brussels attacks, and 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  4. present: References 'terrible events' in Brussels attacks and a 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  5. present: References 'the terrible events... in Brussels' and a Level 4 threat rating, naming a terror attack.
  6. absent: References 'terrible events' and 'attacks' without naming the specific hazard type.
  7. present: References 'the terrible events' i.e. terrorist attacks in Brussels, a specific threat.
  8. present: References 'terrible events' attacks in Brussels, a Level 4 threat.
  9. present: 'the terrible events...in Brussels' referencing attacks names the hazard, plus 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  10. present: References 'terrible events' in Brussels attacks, a specific hazard context.
  11. present: References 'the terrible events...in Brussels', i.e. terror attacks, plus 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  12. present: References 'terrible events' attacks in Brussels, i.e. terrorism.
  13. present: References 'terrible events' in Brussels, i.e. the attacks, as the hazard.
  14. present: References 'the terrible events' i.e. attacks in Brussels, a Level 4 threat.
  15. present: References 'terrible events' i.e. attacks in Brussels and a Level 4 threat rating.
  16. present: References 'the terrible events... in Brussels' and 'Level 4 threat rating', naming the attacks as hazard.
  17. present: Refers to 'the terrible events' and 'the attacks' in Brussels as the specific threat.
  18. present: References the 'terrible events...in Brussels' attacks as the hazard.
  19. present: References 'the terrible events... in Brussels' and a 'Level 4 threat rating', naming the attack threat.
  20. present: References 'terrible events' and attacks in Brussels.
  21. present: References 'the terrible events' i.e. Brussels attacks and a 'Level 4 threat rating'.
  22. present: References 'terrible events' in Brussels and a 'Level 4 threat rating', i.e. the attacks.
  23. present: References 'the terrible events...in Brussels' and Level 4 threat rating attacks.
  24. absent: 'terrible events' is vague and never names the specific attack type.
  25. present: References 'the terrible events that took place this morning in Brussels' (attacks).
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' are repeatedly named as the specific location of concern.

  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 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as the relevant locations.
  2. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as the affected area.
  3. present: 'Brussels' named as the area to avoid.
  4. present: Names Brussels and Belgium as the area of concern.
  5. present: 'Brussels' and specific travel-region guidance give a location.
  6. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as the affected area.
  7. present: Names Belgium and Brussels explicitly.
  8. present: 'Brussels' named as area to avoid.
  9. present: 'Belgium'/'Brussels' named as location to avoid.
  10. present: 'Belgium' and 'Brussels' named as the area to avoid.
  11. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as locations to avoid.
  12. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium'.
  13. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as locations to avoid.
  14. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as relevant areas.
  15. present: Names Brussels and Belgium as the area to avoid.
  16. present: 'Belgium' and 'Brussels' named as locations to avoid.
  17. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as locations to avoid.
  18. present: 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' are named locations to avoid.
  19. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as locations to avoid.
  20. present: Names Brussels and Belgium.
  21. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as locations to avoid.
  22. present: Names Brussels/Belgium as the area to avoid.
  23. present: Names Brussels and Belgium repeatedly.
  24. present: Names Brussels and Belgium repeatedly.
  25. present: Names 'Brussels' and 'Belgium' as the location of concern.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: the letter explicitly advises students 'not to travel to Belgium' and lists multiple concrete safety precautions.

  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: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct protective actions.
  2. present: Advises students 'not to travel to Belgium' and lists specific precautions.
  3. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct action.
  4. present: Advises students 'not to travel to Belgium until further notice' and other precautions.
  5. present: 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct protective action.
  6. present: Advises 'not to travel to Belgium' and lists precautions.
  7. present: Advises 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium until further notice' and other precautions.
  8. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions listed.
  9. present: 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium' and multiple safety measures instruct action.
  10. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and multiple safety measures instruct action.
  11. present: Advises students 'not to travel to Belgium until further notice' and other precautions.
  12. present: Advises 'not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions.
  13. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other travel precautions instruct action.
  14. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct action.
  15. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct action.
  16. present: 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium' and other listed precautions instruct action.
  17. present: Advises students 'not to travel to Belgium until further notice' and lists safety measures.
  18. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and safety measures instruct action.
  19. present: Advises 'not to travel to Belgium' and lists safety measures like registering travel.
  20. present: Advises 'not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions.
  21. present: Advises 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium' and lists safety measures.
  22. present: Advises 'not to travel to Belgium' and lists safety measures.
  23. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precaution instructions given.
  24. present: 'students are advised not to travel to Belgium' and listed travel/safety precautions.
  25. present: 'advised not to travel to Belgium' and other precautions instruct action.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give clear time references.

  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: 'this morning' gives a time reference for the events.
  2. present: References 'this morning' for the attacks.
  3. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give time references.
  4. present: References 'this morning' and 'until further notice'.
  5. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give recency/time.
  6. present: 'this morning' conveys the timing of events.
  7. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey timing.
  8. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' given.
  9. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey timing.
  10. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give recency/duration.
  11. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey recency.
  12. present: References 'this morning' events.
  13. present: 'this morning' gives recency of the events.
  14. present: 'this morning' gives recency.
  15. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give time references.
  16. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey recency.
  17. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey timing.
  18. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give time context.
  19. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give time references.
  20. present: 'this morning' gives recency.
  21. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' give time references.
  22. present: 'this morning' and 'until further notice' convey timing.
  23. present: 'this morning' gives recency.
  24. present: 'this morning' situates the events in time.
  25. present: 'this morning' gives a time reference.
• Impactabsent12/25

  Final assessment

  Narrow majority (about 13 of 24) found the 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity/consequence; a substantial minority disagreed, but the majority view that this conveys impact 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. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  2. absent: No explicit statement of harm or severity beyond 'safety risks' generally.
  3. absent: No explicit statement of harm or severity to recipients beyond the threat rating.
  4. absent: No stated harm/consequence of the threat itself beyond advising caution.
  5. absent: No explicit statement of harm severity beyond the threat rating label.
  6. absent: No explicit statement of potential harm or severity.
  7. present: Mentions 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' conveying severity.
  8. absent: No explicit statement of harm severity beyond threat rating.
  9. absent: No explicit statement of harm or severity beyond the threat rating.
  10. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  11. absent: No stated severity/consequence beyond the threat rating label.
  12. present: Cites 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks'.
  13. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  14. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  15. present: Describes 'terrible events' and 'current safety risks' conveying severity.
  16. absent: No explicit statement of harm severity beyond 'terrible events' and threat rating.
  17. absent: No explicit statement of potential harm beyond a 'Level 4 threat rating' reference, no described consequence.
  18. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  19. absent: Mentions 'safety risks' generally but does not state specific consequence or severity.
  20. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  21. absent: Does not state what harm the threat could cause beyond calling it terrible events.
  22. present: Describes 'current safety risks' and Level 4 threat rating implying severity.
  23. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.
  24. absent: No explicit statement of harm or severity beyond 'terrible'.
  25. present: 'Level 4 threat rating' and 'current safety risks' convey severity.