Tool · Warning-message structure
Message Element Analyzer
A complete warning message answers a handful of questions: who is sending it, what the threat is, where it is, what to do, when, and how serious it could be. All six elements are coded across the verbatim archive; the sixth, the hazard’s impact, was added on the recommendation of warning researcher Dr. Jeannette Sutton. This tool checks each verbatim first-burst campus alert for these elements and shows how the patterns vary across incident types and over time.
Within these 829 coded alerts, location is nearly universal (93%) and a source is usually named (75%), but timing is the weakest link (58%) and it is rarest in the fastest-moving incidents. Explore the patterns below.
These are not our invention. They are the message-content elements that hazards and risk-communication research has identified as the components of a complete warning. The core set (source, hazard, location, guidance, time) is the Warning Response Model that Dennis Mileti and John Sorensen synthesized for FEMA in 1990 after reviewing more than 200 studies of how people respond to warnings. The same structure is reflected in the CDC’s Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) guidance and is the content structure FEMA recommends for Wireless Emergency Alerts. Sources are listed below so you can verify this yourself.
A sixth element, Impact, was added to the framework on the recommendation of Dr. Jeannette Sutton, a public-warning researcher whose work examines the content of warning messages. Impact asks whether a message conveys what the hazard could actually do, its potential consequences or severity, which research finds helps people grasp their personal risk and act sooner. Impact is coded with the same 25-pass method as the other five elements, so the corpus statistics below cover all six.
This page records only the binary presence or absence of each element. It does not score, weight, or rank messages, and it does not reproduce any specific published rubric or scoring instrument.
Sources for the framework
- Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. H. (1990). Communication of Emergency Public Warnings (ORNL-6609). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for FEMA. The foundational synthesis; defines the message-content components. OSTI record.
- CDC. Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Manual (2014, upd. 2018). Its “Be Correct” and “Promote Action” principles map to naming the hazard and giving guidance. CDC CERC.
- FEMA IPAWS. Best Practices for Alerting Authorities Using Wireless Emergency Alerts. Recommends a WEA carry source, hazard, location, protective action, and time/expiration. FEMA guide (PDF).
- Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The Protective Action Decision Model. Risk Analysis, 32(4):616-632. The theory of why message content drives protective behavior. PubMed.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Emergency Alert and Warning Systems. National Academies Press. Free full text.
- Sutton, J., and colleagues. Research on the content and style of public warning messages, including Wireless Emergency Alerts, which examines how conveying a hazard’s impact shapes how people understand and act on a warning. The sixth element (Impact) was added on Dr. Sutton’s recommendation.
How the coding was produced
In plain terms: rather than rely on a single opinion, we asked the same AI (Claude) to read each alert from scratch 25 separate times, with no memory of the other reads. Each time, it decided whether the alert answers each of the five questions and wrote a one-sentence reason. Think of it as 25 quick second opinions, with every opinion’s reasoning shown so you can check it. The more of the 25 that agree, the more settled the call.
More precisely: each verbatim first-burst alert was judged by 25 independent Claude Opus 4.8 passes. Every pass gave its own present or absent verdict for each element and a one-sentence justification, reading only the alert text. An element is marked present by majority vote; the agreement level you see (for example 23/25) is how many of the 25 passes agreed.
A final reviewer (the arbitrator) then reads all 25 verdicts and reasons for each element and writes one plain-English assessment, which is what you see first. There are no keyword rules. Open any element to read the arbitrator’s call, and tuck underneath it are all 25 individual reads, so you can audit a judgment and disagree with it.
This is systematic, repeated AI effort at coding accuracy. It is not human-reviewed and is not validated research coding. Coding used only the alert text, never incident-type metadata. Treat it as a strong starting point and verify against the primary source.
The criteria
The six message elements
- Source
Who is sending the message
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.
- Hazard
What the threat is
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.
- Location
Where the threat is
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.
- Guidance
The protective action to take
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.
- Time
Timing or recency
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.
- Impact
What the hazard could do, its potential impact
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.