Glen, I know this was directed at Michael and it would be Roger who would evaluate a prediction record, but I think you should have less info in the official part of your prediction.
I'd drop depth from a southern California prediction (is more significant for a subduction zone where a very deep quake won't do as much damage for same magnitude).
I'd drop mechanism.

The rest is good: I like to hear the basis. You can put depth and mechanism and dip as separate, making it clear that it is not part of official forecast.

It's hard enough to get a prediction correct; you might want credit of there is a thrust or normal or in this case pure strike-slip quake, perhaps on another fault. For larger quakes, depth would be a bit meaningless if it broke from deep to the surface (say, M6). Also, if there was a M5 or M6 in your prediction range, it would be outside of your magnitude range. I suppose it is needed to distinguish the top end of magnitude range, but consider doing 3.5+.

Chris