content_category: None/Other

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph only cross-references the risk factors section and provides no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, making it a None/Other statement. As a None/Other paragraph, it receives a Generic Boilerplate specificity rating.

provider: nvidia

stage: benchmark


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer stating that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the company and refers readers to risk factors, with no substantive description of governance, management, processes, or incidents.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph describes generic risk management processes related to cybersecurity threats without mentioning any specific dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating it is a general description of risk management activities. Therefore it fits the Risk Management Process category and lacks firm‑specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal information security programs, confidentiality, integrity, availability, and risk management aligned with ISO/NIST frameworks, without mentioning any specific dates, amounts, or named entities. This matches the Risk Management Process category and lacks verifiable facts, leading to Generic Boilerplate specificity.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, making Board Governance the appropriate category. It includes specific facts such as the named ERM Committee and the CIO role, which satisfy the Firm‑Specific criterion.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's and Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Board Governance. It mentions the CISO and CIO roles, which are cybersecurity‑specific titles, providing at least one firm‑specific fact but no hard verifiable data (dates, amounts, etc.), resulting in a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on oversight of third-party consultants and their security certifications, making vendor oversight the central topic. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal Enterprise Risk Management process and how cybersecurity is integrated into it, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It includes named internal programs (ERM, ERA) and a specific numeric detail (12 categories), making it Firm-Specific but not reaching the two hard facts required for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight of cybersecurity risk management, including policies, standards, processes, and receiving incident information, which matches the Board Governance definition. It lacks any named entities, dates, specific frameworks, or verifiable facts, indicating a generic description applicable to any company, thus Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management process, including a multi-stakeholder team and monitoring activities, with the company's own processes as the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors' oversight of cybersecurity risk, making Board Governance the appropriate category. The mention of the HSE Director overseeing cybersecurity provides a firm‑specific fact, elevating specificity to Firm‑Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity threats, potential impact, and the company's lack of resources to protect against incidents, which aligns with risk assessment and vulnerability management aspects of the Risk Management Process category. It does not focus on vendor oversight, specific frameworks, or incident descriptions, supporting the generic nature of the content.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management responsibilities and roles, including the management team, Cybersecurity Committee, and the VP of IT Data Security reporting to the CTO, with the board mentioned only in oversight context.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Trustee's internal cyber risk management program, protocols, and assessments, focusing on processes integrated into overall risk management. It does not mention any specific named standards, dates, dollar amounts, or unique firm-specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program and processes without referencing any specific incident, board or management roles, or third-party oversight, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board of directors overseeing cybersecurity risk and delegating oversight to the audit committee, which receives quarterly and ad‑hoc reports from IT leadership. This focuses on board/committee governance of cyber risk, matching the Board Governance category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk management processes and references the NIST framework, a recognized standard, without any firm‑specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party firms. Therefore it fits the Risk Management Process category and is Sector‑Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk management activities (incident response plan, mitigation, risk assessments) without providing specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named products/tools. Hence it contains no hard verifiable facts and is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal risk management activities (InfoSec team, threat intelligence review, control evaluation) and mitigation of risks from third-party service providers, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It references the company's own processes and use of third parties, indicating firm-specific applicability.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board of directors' oversight role and the audit committee's responsibilities for cybersecurity threats, which matches the Board Governance category definition. It contains no company-specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named products, so it is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal vulnerability/risk management processes and incident response plan, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It names the NIST framework but lacks any firm-specific or verifiable facts, resulting in Sector-Adapted specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities, which aligns with Board Governance (board/committee oversight of cyber risk). It contains no hard facts such as specific dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity processes such as incident response planning, tabletop exercises, business continuity, training, and risk-based controls without referencing any specific dates, amounts, named tools, or third parties. This aligns with the Risk Management Process category and lacks any hard verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses board oversight of cybersecurity risks, consultant assessments, and reporting to the board, with no specific dates, amounts, or named entities. This aligns with the Board Governance category and contains no hard facts, leading to Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the ISO role—its reporting line, qualifications, and responsibilities—making the management role the grammatical subject. It includes a cybersecurity‑specific title (Information Security Officer), which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's risk management program, board oversight, and cybersecurity as part of enterprise risk management. It does not contain any hard verifiable facts such as specific dates, dollar amounts, or named products, nor does it name a recognized standard like NIST or ISO 27001. Therefore it is classified as Generic Boilerplate under the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal policies and procedures for managing cybersecurity risk, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It does not reference any specific industry framework, unique company facts, or quantifiable details, so it is best classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, fitting Board Governance. It contains a named non‑generic committee and a specific headcount, making it Firm‑Specific but lacking two hard verifiable facts for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity risk management policies, procedures, and controls, including reference to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and audit processes. It does not discuss board oversight, management roles, third‑party risk, incident disclosure, or strategic/financial impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CISO/CDIO's identity, qualifications, reporting line, team oversight, and committee briefings, which aligns with the Management Role category. It includes a cybersecurity‑specific title and a named non‑generic committee, providing firm‑specific facts but lacks two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board and Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity, privacy, and data protection, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It includes a hard fact about the Cybersecurity Subcommittee being established in 2023, but lacks multiple hard facts or firm‑specific identifiers, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on internal roles (CIO, CEO), committees (Audit, ERM), and processes (assessments, response plan) tied to the company's cybersecurity governance, which aligns with the Management Role category. The details are specific to the firm's disclosure, supporting Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors and its Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It contains no company‑specific facts such as named dates, dollar amounts, or unique products, indicating a generic boilerplate description.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on third-party vendor security oversight, risk management, and compliance requirements, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Audit Committee's oversight of the cybersecurity program, indicating board governance. It references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, a recognized standard, but contains no firm‑specific facts such as specific dates, numbers, or named internal roles.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident detection and response process, operational plans, reviews, and exercises, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It names the NIST CSF framework but provides no hard verifiable facts such as dates, numbers, or named tools, resulting in a Sector-Adapted specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal organizational structure, roles, reporting lines, and management of cybersecurity programs, focusing on the Director, IT Infrastructure & Security and reporting to executives. This aligns with the Management Role category, which covers CISO/CTO/CIO identification, qualifications, and reporting lines. No firm‑specific facts (named individuals, dates, dollar amounts, standards, etc.) or hard verifiable facts are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity processes for identification, response, testing, and tool usage, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no named products, specific dates, dollar amounts, or third-party firms, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident response practices involving executive oversight, which falls under risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and its Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risk, making Board Governance the appropriate category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity risk management processes involving specific roles (Senior Director of Information Security, Technology Risk Management Committee, etc.) and timelines, indicating a firm-specific risk management process rather than generic governance or incident disclosure.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's ongoing training and awareness program for employees, which falls under the responsibilities of the CISO/CTO/CIO (Management Role). It contains no named entities, dates, amounts, or percentages, so it lacks firm‑specific or verifiable facts and does not cite any recognized standard, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the CISO's role in assessing, monitoring, and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No hard verifiable facts (specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools) are present, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the ERM committee's internal risk management process, including receiving information security action plans from the CISO, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It contains a cybersecurity-specific role (CISO) and a named non-generic committee (ERM), satisfying the Firm-Specific threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing cybersecurity assessments, patch management, disaster recovery, business continuity, and threat monitoring performed by Longbridge's teams, which aligns with risk management activities. It mentions Longbridge-specific groups and an external firm, indicating firm-specific facts without any hard verifiable data.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's role, certifications, experience, and reporting lines, which aligns with the 'Management Role' category. It contains multiple verifiable facts such as a specific duration of experience and numerous named certifications, meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access to user data in October 2023), details the scope of accessed information, and outlines response actions taken, meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure. It contains a concrete date (October 2023) which qualifies as a specific fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact, resulting in a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program and references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework as a guiding standard, which fits the Risk Management Process category. It names a recognized framework but lacks any firm‑specific or verifiable facts, resulting in a Sector‑Adapted specificity rating.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion about cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, fitting Strategy Integration. It includes the specific date 'fiscal 2025', which qualifies as a Firm‑Specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk assessment, reliance on IT systems, and the adequacy of preventive controls against cyber threats, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or specific standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, aligning with industry standards but without naming any specific framework or providing concrete details. It contains no named standards, dates, numbers, or other firm‑specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential material impact of cybersecurity risks on business strategy, operations, and financial condition without referencing any specific incident, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named dates, amounts, roles, or other verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph notes a past incident in August 2020 but emphasizes its lack of material effect and future risk, which aligns with Strategy Integration. The specific month/year provides a verifiable fact, rendering the disclosure Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal management structure, reporting lines, and executive qualifications (e.g., CISO role, certifications, oversight by the Board). This aligns with the 'Management Role' category, which covers CISO/CTO/CIO identification, qualifications, and reporting lines. It references recognized industry frameworks (CISSP, CISA, ITIL) but does not describe any unique external standard specific to this company, making the specificity 'Sector-Adapted'.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses Board and management oversight of cybersecurity risk, indicating Board Governance. It also references the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework, a recognized standard, supporting Sector-Adapted specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses implementing a risk management program, oversight, and processes for cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It does not mention any specific standards, frameworks, or unique company-specific facts, so it is best classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date, response actions, and scope, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date), which qualifies as an IS fact, leading to a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a named product (Dropbox Sign) and a concrete date, providing two or more hard verifiable facts. It details what data was accessed and what was not accessed, supporting classification as an Incident Disclosure with quantified-verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes to manage cyber risk, referencing established frameworks (NIST, GDPR, ISO 27001) and standards, indicating a sector-adapted specificity. It does not center on board oversight, a specific management role, third-party vendor oversight, or a disclosed incident, thus content_category is Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a detected unauthorized third-party access incident, including date, response actions, and impact, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific date (May 6, 2024) as a firm-specific fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Board as the grammatical subject, aligning with Board Governance. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details beyond generic roles and cadences, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with named company, filing date, and incident date, providing verifiable facts that support the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date, detection, response actions, and impact, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. The specific date provides at least one verifiable firm-specific fact, qualifying the specificity as Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a actual cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to customer data by a former employee, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It includes a specific numeric figure (up to 33 million accounts) that qualifies as a hard fact, making the disclosure Firm-Specific; however, only one such fact is present, so it does not meet the two‑fact threshold for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving exfiltration, threat actors, and investigation, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a verifiable specific fact ('first quarter of fiscal 2026'), supporting a Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the internal Information Security Council's meetings and its role in discussing threats and initiatives, which describes the company's own risk management process. It is not about board governance (the ISC is not a board committee) nor primarily about the CISO's qualifications alone.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope and nature of data exposed in a cybersecurity incident (call and text records of wireless customers), which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks specific dates, dollar amounts, percentages, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate for specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Vice President of Information Technology and Information Security Officer's duties, reporting lines, and experience, making the management role the primary subject.


reasoning: The paragraph details the detection, investigation, exfiltration, and reporting of a cybersecurity incident, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It provides two specific dates (February 4 and 5, 2024), giving two hard verifiable facts that satisfy the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date but lacks a second hard fact, so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph consists solely of a forward-looking statements disclaimer with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, fitting the None/Other category and thus receiving a Generic Boilerplate specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a actual cybersecurity incident (threat actor exfiltration, engagement of experts, analysis of personal data, notification efforts) which fits Incident Disclosure. It lacks any named dates, amounts, firms, tools, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving BayFirst Financial Corp., including third‑party investigation, law‑enforcement notification, and access to specific personal data (name, DOB, SSN/TIN) of some customers. It references a specific company and details about the incident’s scope, which matches the Firm‑Specific category (unique facts about this registrant). No hard verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named third‑party security firms are provided, so the specific_facts list is empty.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident affecting the company's IT systems, data, and operations, including impact on functions, data loss, and response actions, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It also references the company's name and specific internal systems, indicating a firm-specific context rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a detected cyber incident with date, encryption, data theft, operational impact, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (December 13, 2023) which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident experienced by the company, referencing a Form 8-K filing but without mentioning any specific standards, frameworks, named third-party entities, or quantifiable details such as dates or amounts. This aligns with the Incident Disclosure category and Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal activities such as retaining external experts for audits, threat assessments, training, and senior management review of results to refine policies, which aligns with the company's own risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a actual cybersecurity attack, including the date, nature of access, encryption, exfiltration, and ongoing remediation, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains a specific date (February 3, 2025), which qualifies as an IS fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable, resulting in a Firm‑Specific rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the actual cyber incident's operational impacts, response actions, and restoration efforts, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains no named entities, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other hard facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access by a former executive officer, website downtime, and ongoing investigation, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named entities, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a nation-state threat actor gaining access, exfiltrating data, and ongoing attacks, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific date ('late November 2023') but lacks a second hard fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses an incident and its potential impact on the company's operations and financial condition, matching the 'Incident Disclosure' category. It does not mention any specific company programs, dates, products, third-party firms, or certification claims, so no firm-specific facts are extracted. Lack of references to recognized frameworks (e.g., NIST, ISO) leads to a 'Generic Boilerplate' specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a actual cybersecurity incident, including detection date and timeframe of initial access, which satisfies the Incident Disclosure category. It provides two specific dates (January 12, 2024 and late November 2023) that are independently verifiable, meeting the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a discovered unauthorized access incident, activation of response protocols, containment, and recovery efforts, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific date (April 5, 2024) providing one firm‑specific fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact needed for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with timeline details, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It provides two specific dates (July 25 and July 29, 2024), which are hard verifiable facts, qualifying it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the financial impact and expense range of an incident without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains a specific dollar amount range, providing a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on oversight and management of risks associated with third-party providers, including protecting personal data, conducting security assessments, and monitoring compliance, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category. No specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities are present, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate as the paragraph contains only generic statements about the company's policies without unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial impact, insurance coverage, and materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It lacks any specific dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or standards, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial and operational impact of a cyber incident on earnings and results of operations, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It includes two specific dates (June 30, 2024 and June 19, 2024), providing hard verifiable facts that satisfy the Quantified-Verifiable specificity threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity incident with dates, detection, containment, investigation, and remediation actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains two specific dates (December 13, 2023 and December 15, 2023), which are hard verifiable facts, qualifying it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses insurance reimbursement expectations and materiality impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It lacks any verifiable dates, amounts, named tools, or firm-specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes financial consequences of a cybersecurity incident, including delayed transaction recognition, revenue shifts, one-time expenses, and impacts across fiscal quarters. This pertains to business/financial impact and cyber insurance considerations, aligning with the Strategy Integration category. The only concrete, verifiable details are the referenced time periods (fourth quarter 2023 and first quarter 2024), supporting a Generic Boilerplate classification due to the lack of company‑specific frameworks, standards, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the timeline, impact, and response to a cybersecurity incident (halting operations, restoration, expert engagement), meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It lacks specific dates, dollar amounts, named firms, or other hard verifiable facts, so it is rated as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the expected materiality impact of an incident and provides forward-looking financial expectations without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It includes three exact dates, which are hard verifiable facts, meeting the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact and estimated costs of the incident without describing what happened, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific dates and a dollar amount), qualifying it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a nation-state actor gaining unauthorized access to HPE's cloud-based email environment, exfiltrating data from May 2023, and the company’s response actions, which fits the Incident Disclosure definition. Additionally, the paragraph contains specific dates (December 12, 2023; May 2023) and a percentage figure, providing at least two hard verifiable facts that support a Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial impact, costs, insurance coverage, and materiality of an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It lacks any specific dates, dollar amounts, named firms, or other hard facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident at CDK Global that caused disruptions to the company's systems, including timing, impact, and restoration details, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It contains two hard verifiable facts—a specific date and a named third-party firm—making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific ransomware incident with dates, scope, and response actions, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains two verifiable dates, satisfying the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a specific cybersecurity incident, including the detection date, containment steps, encryption of data, and operational impacts, which satisfies the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a actual cybersecurity incident with detection date, unauthorized access, and response actions, meeting Incident Disclosure. It provides two specific dates (June 30, 2024 and July 5, 2024), which are hard verifiable facts, yielding Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident affecting the company's systems, referencing specific dates and a named third-party (CDK), which matches the Incident Disclosure category. The presence of concrete dates and a named third-party firm provides hard verifiable facts, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to Nucor's IT systems, activation of incident response plan, containment measures, investigation with experts, notification to law enforcement, and operational impact on production. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which requires a real event description with details about what happened, response actions, and affected systems. The inclusion of company-specific details (Nucor Corporation) and specific actions indicates a Firm-Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection of a cybersecurity incident, response actions, investigation, and notification of regulators, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It includes the company name and a specific date, which are firm-specific facts, leading to the Firm‑Specific specificity determination.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection of a cybersecurity incident on a specific date, involving the Company's internal systems and external response, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category and includes firm-specific details such as the date and company name.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial liquidity arrangements to fund cybersecurity incident remediation without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific dates, dollar amount, named third-party firms), qualifying as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cyberattack on Change Healthcare services, impact on consumers and providers, and response actions (mitigation, restoration, investigation), fitting Incident Disclosure. It lacks any named standards, dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, including exfiltration of data and notifications to affected parties and law enforcement, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific hard facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, matching the Board Governance category. It contains no named roles, dates, numbers, or framework references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving a named company, unauthorized access, data breach, and responsive actions, which aligns with the 'Incident Disclosure' category. The inclusion of explicit dates, company name, and detailed technical facts supports a firm-specific classification rather than a generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, covering threat actor actions, impact assessment, lack of evidence of data theft, reporting to authorities, and statements about no material impact. This aligns with the Incident Disclosure category, which covers incident narratives and impact descriptions. The paragraph lacks any company‑specific facts, named entities, or verifiable metrics (e.g., dates, dollar amounts, percentages), so it is best classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities and qualifications of the CIO and Information Security Director, indicating a management role. It includes specific, verifiable facts: the stated years of experience (35 and 25) for each role.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CTO's responsibilities and reporting lines, making the management role the central topic. It includes a cybersecurity‑specific title (CTO) and a specific duration of experience, which together satisfy the Firm‑Specific criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph only provides a cross-reference to the risk factors section and does not describe any cybersecurity governance, management, risk processes, third-party oversight, incident details, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality conclusions about cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, aligning with Strategy Integration. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the detection, response, and impact of a real cybersecurity incident, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific verifiable date (March 14, 2024) but lacks a second hard fact, so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Mr. Gharib's responsibilities related to cybersecurity, indicating a management role focus. It lacks any named titles, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Adviser's program for identifying, classifying, and escalating cybersecurity incidents to provide management visibility and public disclosure, which aligns with the Management Role category (CISO/CTO/CIO identification, qualifications, reporting lines). It contains no hard facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, supporting a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes activities such as monitoring data protection laws, managing material risks from cyber threats, and responding to incidents, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category (risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring). No specific facts like dates, amounts, or named entities are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal risk management processes, board oversight, and management roles without citing specific dates, amounts, or named standards, fitting Risk Management Process as the primary category and lacking verifiable facts for specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the chief financial officer's responsibility for cybersecurity risk oversight and updating the Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee, which is a board committee. This aligns with board/committee oversight of cyber risk, fitting the Board Governance category. No specific dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or standards are mentioned, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight, training, risk assessment reviews, policy approval, and delegation to the Enterprise Risk Management Committee, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It contains no specific dates, numbers, named frameworks, or other hard verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, its standards, policies, and processes, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It references a Global CISO, a cybersecurity‑specific title, providing one Firm‑Specific fact, but lacks hard verifiable details such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party firms, leading to moderate confidence in the Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes individual executive roles (CISO and CTO) and their responsibilities, which aligns with the Management Role category. The facts are specific to the company's employees, indicating Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of material cybersecurity incidents, immaterial expenses, and lack of evidence of malware or compromised exchange, which aligns with Incident Disclosure reporting. It does not reference specific standards, frameworks, or named entities, indicating a generic boilerplate nature.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board of directors overseeing the risk management program, indicating board-level oversight, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It references two named standards bodies, providing hard verifiable facts that qualify the specificity as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses periodic risk assessments, guidelines for risk measurement and prioritization, and mitigation strategies including incident response plans, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any company‑specific facts such as named entities, dates, or dollar amounts, so it is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity training, penetration testing, and assessments aimed at risk mitigation and incident impact analysis, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No specific dates, numbers, or named entities are mentioned, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines internal cybersecurity incident response policies and escalation to internal teams, which fits the risk management process category rather than board governance, management role, incident disclosure, strategy integration, or other categories.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risks and their lack of material impact, referencing updates to information security strategy but providing no specific metrics, dates, or named standards. This aligns with risk management discussion rather than a specific framework or firm-specific detail, leading to the Risk Management Process category and Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Audit Committee's role in overseeing cybersecurity risks and its communication with senior leadership, which aligns with Board Governance (oversight of cyber risk by a board committee). It does not describe a specific management role, risk management process, third‑party risk, incident disclosure, or strategy integration. For specificity, the paragraph contains only generic governance statements applicable to any company (e.g., board, audit committee, CFO) and no firm‑specific, sector‑adapted, or quantifiable facts, so Generic Boilerplate is appropriate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the enterprise risk management team working with the Chief Security Officer, indicating a focus on management roles rather than board oversight or generic processes. The mention of the CSO provides a firm‑specific fact, but only one verifiable detail is present, so the specificity is Firm‑Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Company's engagement with external experts for audits, assessments, and testing, which centers on third-party oversight of cybersecurity risk. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risks and resources expended but lacks specific metrics, dates, or named entities, leading to a Risk Management Process classification and Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of material cybersecurity incidents and immaterial expenses, referring to risk factors for potential impact, which aligns with describing the company's risk management process rather than disclosing specific incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity activities such as committee meetings, employee training, and policies, which pertains to the company's own risk management process. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named roles, tools, or third-party references needed for a higher specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing identification and management of cybersecurity risks, which aligns with risk assessment and management activities. It lacks specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight of cybersecurity, with the Audit Committee and full Board as the grammatical subjects, fitting Board Governance. It names specific cybersecurity‑specific roles (CIO, CISO), which qualifies as at least one Firm‑Specific fact, but lacks two hard verifiable facts for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses integration of the cybersecurity program into various internal risk management programs without providing specific dates, amounts, named tools, or third‑party entities, fitting the Risk Management Process category and containing only generic boilerplate language.


specificity_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board-level oversight, assigning the Audit Committee responsibility for cybersecurity risk management, with no quantifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, leading to the Board Governance category and generic specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's incident response plan, which is an internal risk management process, and does not reference any board, management roles, specific incidents, or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's overall process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks, including stakeholder meetings, strategy development, incident controls, and reporting to management and the Board. It does not mention any specific named entities, standards, dates, or quantifiable metrics, indicating a generic description.


reasoning: The paragraph is a cross‑reference to another section of the filing and contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight of risk management, management's role in identifying and mitigating cybersecurity risks, and reporting lines to the audit committee and board, which fits the Board Governance category. It contains no named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the reporting lines and responsibilities of the CISO and CTO, which pertains to management roles overseeing the information security program. It mentions the cybersecurity-specific titles CISO and CTO, which qualify as firm-specific facts under the IS list.


reasoning: The paragraph describes specific executive roles, years of experience, certifications, and responsibilities related to information systems and cyber risk management, which aligns with the Management Role category. It also contains specific details about the company and its officers, supporting a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on assessing and managing risks from vendors, suppliers, and other business partners, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category. It contains no named entities, dates, dollar amounts, or other hard verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's risk assessment of cybersecurity threats and potential material impacts, aligning with internal risk management processes. It includes a specific date (fiscal year ended March 31, 2025), which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact, but lacks a second hard fact needed for a quantified‑verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes using third parties for ethical hacking, penetration testing, and reviews to assess and improve controls, aligning the cybersecurity program with external requirements. This matches risk management activities (assessment, monitoring, vulnerability management) rather than describing a specific management role or named standards.


reasoning: The paragraph describes specific actions taken by Aramark in fiscal 2024 to engage cybersecurity firms for crisis simulation, monitoring, incident response, and threat intelligence, which reflects the company's own risk management processes rather than generic or industry-wide statements.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses risk management measures and the limitations of such measures in addressing cybersecurity threats, without referencing specific incidents, frameworks, or third-party details. This aligns with the Risk Management Process category and lacks firm‑specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity insurance and the potential for a material adverse effect without describing any specific incident, fitting Strategy Integration. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on evaluating and overseeing cybersecurity risks from third‑party service providers, which aligns with the Third‑Party Risk category. It contains no dates, amounts, named firms, or tools, so it lacks hard verifiable facts and is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal audit program that conducts annual business risk assessments including cybersecurity risk evaluation and reporting to business leaders, which aligns with the company's internal risk management processes. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named roles, frameworks, or third-party references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal security tools, policies, training, and testing activities, which pertains to the company's own risk management processes. It lacks any named products, dates, numbers, or third‑party firms, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the importance of cybersecurity, generic threats, potential material adverse impact, and the need to expend resources, without referencing any specific internal processes, frameworks, or named entities. This aligns with a generic risk management discussion rather than board oversight, incident disclosure, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cybersecurity risks delegated to the Audit Committee, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as dates, amounts, named firms, or products, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes and ERM integration without referencing any specific roles, dates, frameworks, or unique details, fitting the Risk Management Process category and containing no verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Jack Wang's responsibility for managing cybersecurity risks and reporting incidents to executive officers and the Board, which aligns with the Management Role category. It contains no hard verifiable facts such as specific dates, dollar amounts, percentages, named third‑party firms, or named tools, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the IT department's role in assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, referencing its extensive experience and reporting to the Audit Committee, which aligns with internal risk management processes rather than board oversight, third‑party vendors, or incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph emphasizes management and board responsibilities, particularly the board's oversight of cybersecurity risk via the audit committee, which aligns with Board Governance. It lacks specific verifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, indicating generic boilerplate content.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk management processes overseen by the board and audit committee, describing a risk-based approach to assess, identify, and manage cyber risks as part of the overall risk management strategy, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category (risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, IR planning, ERM integration). It lacks any company‑specific facts, dates, amounts, or named third‑party references, so it is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal technical, physical, and organizational measures to manage cybersecurity risk, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It references the company's own policies and systems, indicating a firm-specific scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Director of Cybersecurity's role and responsibilities, indicating oversight and reporting to the executive committee, which aligns with Board Governance. It also references a cybersecurity-specific title (Director of Cybersecurity), supporting a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, making Board Governance the appropriate category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal vulnerability assessment and risk management processes without referencing any specific incident, named framework, or unique company details, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any verifiable facts such as dates, numbers, or named tools, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident detection and response processes (SOC operations, severity matrix, escalation), fitting Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, dates, dollar amounts, tools, or other verifiable specifics, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses insurance, business continuity/disaster recovery plans, and annual tabletop testing, which aligns with internal risk management processes rather than board oversight or incident disclosure. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named tools, or third-party references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's incident response process involving the information security team, senior VP IT Ops, monitoring, severity assessment, escalation procedures, and communication to management, the Committee, and the Board. This aligns with the Management Role category, which covers CISO/CTO/CIO identification, qualifications, and reporting lines. No specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party firms are mentioned, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a suite of measures to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks, including incident detection, vulnerability management, disaster recovery, risk assessments, encryption, access controls, monitoring, and related processes. These align with the Risk Management Process category, which covers risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, and ERM integration. No specific named standards, dates, amounts, percentages, or third‑party references are mentioned, so the paragraph is generic rather than firm‑specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of an ongoing incident on business operations and financial condition without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named entities, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board of Directors establishing a Cybersecurity Committee, indicating board oversight of cyber risk, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It includes a specific year (2023) and a certification (NACD-sponsored CERT Certificate) from a named institution, providing two hard verifiable facts that support a Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal efforts to adopt the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and align policies with regulatory guidance, which pertains to its risk management processes. It names a recognized standard (NIST) but lacks any firm-specific or verifiable facts, making it sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses incident response actions (law enforcement notification, regulatory assessment) and impact statements, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a threat actor accessing and exfiltrating data, including personally identifiable information, and the company providing notifications, which aligns with the definition of an Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident and its expected impact, supporting the Incident Disclosure category. It also includes specific dates (quarter end and full year), which are hard facts, justifying Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection and response to a specific cybersecurity incident at SouthState Bank, including internal actions, external notifications, and impact containment, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. The mention of a specific company and detailed actions supports Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the operational and financial impact of a cybersecurity incident (delays, revenue percentage) without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains a specific date and a percentage—two hard verifiable facts—making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes unauthorized activity on IT systems, detection, containment, assessment, remediation, and isolation from the Internet, which aligns with the definition of Incident Disclosure (description of actual cybersecurity incidents). Only one concrete verifiable fact (the date) is present, insufficient for Quantified-Verifiable, and no recognized standards or firm‑specific details are cited, leading to Generic Boilerplate as the fallback specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality conclusions (no material impact from cybersecurity risks and forward-looking risk) without describing any specific incident, which fits the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, rendering it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard forward-looking statements disclaimer with no cybersecurity content or substantive disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident, including timeline, investigation steps, and impact assessment, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access and response actions, matching the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a verifiable date (May 1, 2024) but lacks other hard facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable, and does not reference specific standards, frameworks, or named entities required for Sector-Adapted or Firm-Specific, leading to a Generic Boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection of unauthorized activity, steps to contain/assess/remediate, and a specific date when systems were isolated from the Internet, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. The date provides a firm‑specific hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident's operational impact, investigation findings, and response actions, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any named dates, amounts, third-party firms, or tools, so it contains no hard verifiable facts and is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions taken to contain and remediate an incident and states that the Bank's systems were not compromised and no unauthorized transactions occurred, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the discovery of additional exfiltrated data containing PII and PHI, which is a narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date and company name, matching the Incident Disclosure category. The presence of a specific date and a specific company name provides two hard verifiable facts, supporting Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation with no evidence of specific threat activities, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. The lack of specific standards or company‑unique details indicates a generic boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph only states that the cybersecurity incident had no material impact and is not likely to have one, without describing the incident itself. This matches the Strategy Integration category for standalone materiality conclusions. It lacks any verifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact of the incident on earnings per share and quantifies that impact, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains a specific date (June 30, 2024) and specific dollar amounts ($1.18 and $0.64), providing two or more hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing investigation and lack of material impact without providing specific dates, amounts, or named entities, which matches the None/Other category (forward-looking disclaimers, non-cybersecurity content). No verifiable facts are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including what happened (threat actor stole personal data) and the scope (35.5 million consumers), which fits Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific numeric fact (35.5 million) that qualifies as Firm-Specific but lacks a second hard verifiable fact for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's belief about incident impact on financial condition and ongoing risks, which aligns with risk management considerations rather than describing a specific cybersecurity incident or board governance. No specific facts (dates, amounts, etc.) are present, leading to a generic boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving AT&T, law enforcement, and DOJ determinations, with named dates and entities, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains firm‑specific details (AT&T actions and beliefs) rather than generic or standard‑only information, leading to the Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a cybersecurity incident, including investigation, law enforcement coordination, and user notifications, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial costs and revenue impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It provides two specific dollar amounts, giving two hard verifiable facts that qualify as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a data exfiltration incident involving IT and financial information in preparation of a Form 10-K filing, which matches the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, notification to law enforcement, and cyber insurance policy, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category (description of actual cybersecurity incidents). It does not contain specific verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, and does not reference any recognized standards or cybersecurity-specific facts, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving the company, including a date of awareness and response actions, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. The presence of a concrete date tied to the company's disclosure qualifies as a firm‑specific fact, though only one hard verifiable fact is present, so it does not reach the Quantified‑Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a ransomware incident with a specific date, response actions, engagement of experts, and notification plans, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It does not center on board oversight, management roles, risk processes, third-party risk, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access, a misdirected wire payment, and deleted emails, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It also includes the company name and specific details about the incident, supporting a Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality impact of an incident without describing the event itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It mentions the specific product 'Dropbox Sign,' providing a firm‑specific fact that elevates specificity above generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to Conduent Incorporated on a specific date, with response actions and no material impact, matching the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a verifiable date (January 13, 2025) which is a hard fact, supporting Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a network interruption incident, efforts to restore systems, involvement of security experts and law enforcement, and belief that the interruption is specific to Change Healthcare systems. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which requires description of a real cybersecurity event. No specific dates, amounts, or named third‑party facts are present, so specific_facts is empty. Without hard verifiable facts or references to recognized standards, the paragraph does not qualify as Quantified‑Verifiable, Sector‑Adapted, or Firm‑Specific; therefore the default specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date) but lacks a second hard fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable, resulting in Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a data exfiltration incident and potential regulatory notifications, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or specific tools, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a actual cybersecurity incident with timing, scope, and response actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific date (July 10, 2024), which qualifies as a Firm‑Specific fact but does not reach the two‑fact threshold for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a discovered cybersecurity incident, including dates of discovery and exfiltration, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It contains multiple specific, verifiable dates (April 19, 2024; April 14‑25, 2024; January 2, 2023), satisfying the threshold for Quantified‑Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses expenses, risks, uncertainties, and impact assessment related to an incident, without describing the incident's specifics or providing quantifiable details. This aligns with Risk Management Process rather than Incident Disclosure, which would focus on what happened, when, scope, and response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential financial and operational impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself or any internal risk processes, aligning with Strategy Integration. It includes a specific future date (March 31, 2026), providing one hard verifiable fact, which meets the threshold for Firm‑Specific but not for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates detection, containment, and remediation of a cybersecurity incident, including a specific date, which meets the Incident Disclosure criteria. The specific date provides a firm‑specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact is present, so the specificity is Firm‑Specific rather than Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with details about unauthorized access and affected data, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It includes a specific user count (approximately 8.4 million), which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact but does not reach the two‑fact threshold for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a detected cybersecurity incident, response actions, investigation, and containment, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a specific date (March 27, 2024) but lacks a second hard verifiable fact, so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a press release about a specific cybersecurity incident (Change Healthcare attack) involving a named company, a concrete date, and details of the response, which matches the Incident Disclosure category and contains firm‑specific identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a specific cybersecurity incident (exfiltration on a given date) with response steps, meeting Incident Disclosure. It includes a concrete date, providing at least one firm‑specific fact, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses generic communications with customers, adherence to safety standards, and ongoing service provision, without detailing any specific incident facts, dates, or unique company actions, indicating boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes discovery, containment, investigation, and notification of a cybersecurity incident, matching the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or other hard facts, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a cybersecurity incident, including activating a response plan, investigation, remediation, and law enforcement notification, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the scope of data affected in a cybersecurity incident (names, masked SSN, bank info, government IDs, corporate data), which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no dates, numbers, named entities, or standards, so it qualifies as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Selected Incident Disclosure because the paragraph describes a ransomware incident, encryption, and unauthorized disclosure of data. Selected Quantified-Verifiable because the paragraph contains two hard verifiable facts: the specific dates March 11, 2026 and March 18, 2026.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard legal disclaimer about filing status and contains no cybersecurity-related content. It matches the None/Other category for non‑cybersecurity disclaimers and therefore receives Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's remediation actions following a cybersecurity incident, indicating removal of third-party access, restoration of access, and verification of data integrity, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. It focuses on the company's specific response, not generic boilerplate, thus Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a actual cybersecurity incident with a specific date of discovery and details of the response, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains a specific date (February 21, 2024), which qualifies as a Firm‑Specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal incident response actions (safeguards, monitoring, access controls, third‑party expert engagement, regulator notification) without mentioning any specific incident details, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's belief that it has contained an incident and its ongoing remediation efforts, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It references the company's own actions (working with cybersecurity experts, reinforcing systems, etc.), indicating a firm-specific context rather than generic or sector-wide standards.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection of suspicious activity and response steps, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure (description of actual cybersecurity incidents, what happened, when, scope, response actions).


reasoning: The paragraph contains a generic forward-looking statements disclaimer, which is standard legal boilerplate not tied to any specific cybersecurity governance, management, risk, incident, or strategy topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving exfiltration and investigation of accessed systems, focusing on regulatory and legal notifications, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks specific hard facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity classification.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses VF's belief about the material impact of a cyber incident on its financial condition, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It includes a specific date (the filing date) as a hard verifiable fact, supporting Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of a cybersecurity incident on financial condition without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight of cybersecurity risks, audit committee updates, and executive leadership involvement, which matches the Board Governance category. No firm‑specific facts (such as named entities, dates, dollar amounts, or standards) are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Chose Board Governance because paragraph describes committee reporting to board on cybersecurity oversight. Chose Generic Boilerplate because paragraph contains no hard verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality conclusion about the incident without describing what happened, when, scope, or response actions, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named dates, amounts, products, or third‑party firms, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation and incident that temporarily disrupted a subsidiary's operations, includes the filing date, and states the company's belief about financial impact—details specific to this firm's disclosure, matching the Incident Disclosure category and Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal enterprise risk management process and cybersecurity program for assessing and managing cyber risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses dependence on internal and external technology in the context of risk management and strategy, aligning with internal risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on evaluating third-party vendors as part of cybersecurity risk management, indicating vendor oversight. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses investing in cybersecurity and resiliency of networks, enhancing internal controls and processes to protect systems and infrastructure. This aligns with risk management activities such as framework adoption, vulnerability management, and monitoring, which are core to the Risk Management Process category. No specific dates, dollar amounts, or named entities are present, so the paragraph is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general operating procedures for cybersecurity risk management integrated into enterprise risk management programs, referencing common methodologies, reporting channels, and governance processes without mentioning any specific standards, frameworks, dates, amounts, or company‑specific details. This matches the Risk Management Process category and reads as generic boilerplate text.


reasoning: The paragraph states that the incident has not had a material impact and is not reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company. This indicates no specific cybersecurity incident is disclosed, so the appropriate category is None/Other. Since no named entities, dates, or specific details are mentioned, the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential failure to prevent or mitigate cybersecurity incidents and references risk factors, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It does not contain any company‑specific facts, standards, or unique identifiers, so it is best classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cyber risk management program without mentioning any specific dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating a generic risk management process rather than a firm-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an individual's professional background and does not reference any cybersecurity incident, thus it does not match any incident-based category. Therefore, the appropriate content category is None/Other, which maps to Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes oversight and evaluation of a committee, indicating board/committee oversight of cybersecurity. The named Cybersecurity Committee provides a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, which aligns with the Board Governance category. It contains no named standards, dates, numbers, or specific entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's safeguards and ongoing vulnerability to cyber threats, describing internal risk management practices without referencing any specific incident, board, management role, third‑party oversight, or financial impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management process and its integration into the enterprise risk management program, with no incident narrative, board/management focus, or third-party vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the audit committee and board of directors overseeing cybersecurity activities, which matches Board Governance. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response and recovery frameworks and their testing cadence, which falls under risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards that would make it firm-specific or quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity program aimed at protecting information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category and contains no specific facts, thus is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Mr. Tao's professional experience in business consultation, operations, and management, with a focus on the marketing industry. This pertains to a management role rather than board governance, risk, third‑party, incident, or strategy topics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes responsibility of heads of ITS and executive management for cybersecurity risk assessment, which aligns with the Management Role category (CISO/CTO/CIO identification). It lacks any company‑specific facts or references to external standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the cybersecurity program as part of the company's overall risk management approach, focusing on internal processes without naming any specific frameworks, roles, dates, or unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the qualifications of the IT team in cybersecurity but does not describe board oversight, a specific management role, internal risk processes, third‑party risk, an incident, or strategy integration; thus it falls under None/Other. As a None/Other paragraph, it receives Generic Boilerplate specificity with no verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal employee training and policy compliance related to personally identifiable information and cybersecurity, which aligns with risk management processes. It lacks any specific named entities, dates, or standards, indicating generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors monitoring risk exposure and executive officers managing risks, which aligns with board oversight of cyber risk. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes incident response actions such as eradicating malware, identifying root cause, and preventing future attacks, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category that covers description of actual cybersecurity incidents and response actions. It lacks any named entities, dates, dollar amounts, percentages, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes, with management (including the CFO acting as CISO) implementing them, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It includes a cybersecurity‑specific title (CFO as CISO), providing one firm‑specific fact but insufficient hard verifiable facts for a Quantified‑Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal role focused on cybersecurity risk assessment and reporting to senior management, which aligns with risk management processes. It lacks specific named entities, dates, or quantities, so it is generic rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CSO and CISO staying informed and their reporting lines to committees and the board, indicating a management role discussion. It includes cybersecurity‑specific titles and a named committee, providing firm‑specific facts but no hard verifiable data.


reasoning: The paragraph merely states that the company uses email and cloud storage services from reputable providers that include cybersecurity protections, without discussing vendor oversight, internal processes, governance, management, incidents, or strategy. It contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph reports that no significant cybersecurity breach occurred and therefore no associated expenses, penalties, or settlements were incurred for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, which is a materiality conclusion without describing an actual incident, fitting the Strategy Integration category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's ongoing review and refinement of its incident response plan and procedures, which pertains to internal risk management processes rather than board oversight, management roles, third-party risk, incident disclosure, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses management oversight of cybersecurity, assigning responsibilities to CIO and VP of Info Security, without mentioning any specific standards, dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating it is a general management description rather than a specific framework or incident.


reasoning: The paragraph states that the company has not experienced a cybersecurity incident that would materially affect its business strategy, results of operations, or financial position. It does not describe an actual incident, nor does it pertain to board governance, management roles, risk management processes, third‑party risk, or strategy integration. Therefore it falls under the catch‑all None/Other category, and lacking any company‑specific details it is treated as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on reviewing and monitoring third-party IT service providers' cybersecurity measures, making vendor oversight the central topic. It mentions the specific third-party firm Security Scorecard, which provides a firm-specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is 'Management,' describing its role in being informed and monitoring cybersecurity incident handling, which aligns with the Management Role category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the Board and Audit Committee receiving reports from management about cybersecurity risks, which is a typical internal governance description applicable to any company, indicating Board Governance as the content category and generic boilerplate as the specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors receiving reports from CISO and CIO regarding NetScout's cybersecurity threats and processes, indicating a firm-specific context centered on NetScout.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's CIO and Director of IT Security, Risk and Compliance and their combined experience, focusing on management roles. It includes cybersecurity‑specific titles and an exact duration of experience, making the disclosure firm‑specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the immaterial financial impact of cybersecurity incidents and notes there were no material incidents or penalties. This focuses on business/financial impact and materiality assessments without describing any actual incident, aligning with the Strategy Integration category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Cytokinetics' internal risk management and strategy for cybersecurity measures without providing any specific dates, amounts, named tools, or third-party details, making it a generic internal process disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity training and phishing simulation activities, which are part of the company's risk management processes. It lacks any named standards, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other hard verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal strategies for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, focusing on processes like traffic monitoring and user training. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details that would make it firm-specific or sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board receiving updates from the Audit Committee and Cybersecurity team about risk indicators, test results, remediation, and threat management, which matches the Board Governance category of board/committee oversight of cyber risk.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's lack of material cybersecurity incidents, referencing the company name GlobalX and the dates December 31, 2022 and 2023, which are specific to this disclosure. This matches the Incident Disclosure category (reporting on cybersecurity incidents) and Firm-Specific specificity (contains facts unique to the company's disclosure).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management system without referencing any board, management roles, third parties, or specific incidents, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It lacks named frameworks, dates, numbers, or other verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the role and activities of cybersecurity professionals without mentioning any specific standards, dates, amounts, or company‑unique facts, indicating a general management role rather than a sector‑specific framework. Lack of any hard facts or firm‑specific identifiers leads to a generic boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response plan and its testing via tabletop exercises, which pertains to the company's own risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, specific dates, quantities, or other verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses comprehensive cyber insurance coverage and mitigation of financial losses from cyber incidents, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category's focus on cyber insurance and business/financial impact. No specific dates, amounts, named firms, tools, or standards are mentioned, so the paragraph contains no firm‑specific facts and is generic enough to apply to any company, leading to the Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the bank's internal cybersecurity program components (policies, procedures, assessments, monitoring, response plans, testing) without referencing any specific dates, numbers, frameworks, or named entities, indicating a generic description of risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors' oversight of the cybersecurity program, which falls under Board Governance. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named frameworks, or firm-specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses who handles day-to-day cybersecurity management (IT staff) and considerations for enhancing or outsourcing that role, focusing on management responsibilities. It lacks any named roles, dates, numbers, tools, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the establishment of an internal cybersecurity team (CyberSmart Defender Network) for awareness and training, which aligns with management responsibilities such as CISO/CTO oversight rather than board oversight or risk assessment processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes objectives related to risk management in cyber incidents, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. The statement reflects the company's specific goals, indicating Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal executive responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with board governance oversight rather than a generic or sector-wide standard.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the materiality impact of an incident without describing the event, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named dates, amounts, frameworks, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph states a conclusion about the lack of material impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category focused on business/financial impact and materiality assessments. It contains no verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Invesco's activities in threat intelligence, forum engagement, and use of external experts to assess controls and test capabilities, which aligns with risk management processes. No specific metrics (dates, amounts, etc.) are present, so specific_facts is empty. The discussion centers on the company's own initiatives, supporting a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity risk management program and reporting lines to the Audit Committee, which reflects internal risk management processes rather than governance, management roles, third‑party risk, incident disclosure, or strategy. No hard‑verifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, or named third‑party products are present, so specificity is low.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses implementing a process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks as part of the broader risk management system, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It mentions the specific internal system 'BDTP TM', providing one firm‑specific fact but insufficient hard facts for a Quantified‑Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity awareness training for employees, incident response personnel, and senior management, as well as a risk management process for third-party service providers. These activities align with the Risk Management Process category, which covers risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, and ERM integration. No specific named entities, frameworks, dates, or dollar amounts are mentioned, so the paragraph is generic rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a cybersecurity incident, including working with experts, law enforcement, and regulators, without providing specific dates, amounts, or named standards. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which covers descriptions of actual incidents and response actions. The lack of verifiable facts (dates, dollar amounts, percentages, named firms/tools) and absence of referenced frameworks or standards leads to the Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing forensic analysis to determine the nature, scope, and impact of an incident without conclusive evidence yet, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category that covers descriptions of actual cybersecurity incidents, their scope, response actions, and impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes seeking reimbursement for costs from a cyber incident via insurers, which aligns with Incident Disclosure (description of actual cybersecurity incidents). No specific named entities, dates, amounts, or standards are mentioned, so the paragraph lacks firm-specific details, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own cybersecurity program, including an incident response plan and management being informed about threats, which aligns with risk management activities such as risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, and monitoring.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential material impact of an incident and ongoing forensic investigation without describing the event itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains no dates, dollar amounts, named firms, tools, or other firm-specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's assessment that no cybersecurity threats materially affected its strategy, operations, or financial condition, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category's focus on materiality and business/financial impact. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as named frameworks, dates with month, dollar amounts, or third-party entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a threat actor accessing and exfiltrating data containing personally identifiable information, and the company providing notifications to affected parties and regulators. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which covers descriptions of actual cybersecurity incidents. No specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools/products are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes being carried out by individuals in company management (Senior Director of IT, CFO, Treasurer). It refers to roles rather than named persons, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other verifiable facts, indicating a Management Role classification with no firm‑specific details, hence Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the materiality impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named dates, amounts, tools, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses whether an incident is reasonably likely to materially impact financial condition, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no sector‑ or firm‑specific details, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph only states that the incident has not had a material impact and is not reasonably likely to materially affect financial condition, which is a materiality conclusion without incident details, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal employee and contractor training on cybersecurity threats and communication of security policies, which falls under the company's internal risk management processes rather than board oversight or incident disclosure. It lacks any named standards, dates, numbers, or third-party references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the materiality impact of an incident without describing what happened, when, or any response actions, which matches the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named firms, or tools, so it contains zero hard verifiable facts and is therefore Generic Boilerplate.