reasoning: The paragraph describes risks arising from a cybersecurity incident affecting the Company, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It references the Company specifically, indicating a firm-specific context rather than generic or sector-wide statements.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's coordination with legal counsel and notification of law enforcement and regulatory bodies regarding a matter, which is a typical incident response action. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.

provider: nvidia

stage: benchmark


reasoning: The paragraph describes an incident and states it has not materially impacted operations or financials, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It refers to the Company's own operations, indicating a firm-specific context.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's notification of law enforcement and regulators following an incident, which reflects an internal risk management/incident response process. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or other specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Strategy Integration

specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph discusses Lee's cybersecurity insurance policy covering incident response, forensic investigations, business interruption, and regulatory fines, which relates to business/financial impact and cyber insurance, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It also mentions the company's specific policy, indicating a firm‑specific fact without hard numbers, leading to Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes risks and impacts stemming from an Incident affecting Coupang, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It also includes firm-specific facts about Coupang’s operations and risks, supporting the Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, noting no material disruption and ongoing evaluation of legal, financial, reputational, and remediation impacts. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which covers descriptions of actual incidents and their effects. No specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, or named third-party firms/products are mentioned, so there are no firm‑specific verifiable facts. Consequently the paragraph is best classified as generic boilerplate rather than sector‑adapted or firm‑specific.


specificity_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph discusses expected insurance reimbursement for cybersecurity incident costs, which relates to risk management processes. No specific measurable facts (dates, amounts, etc.) are present, leading to a generic classification.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph discusses legal waiver language regarding rights and remedies under credit and lease agreements, which is not related to cybersecurity governance, management, risk, incidents, or strategy. Therefore it falls under 'None/Other' content category. The language is standard boilerplate legal text not specific to any firm or sector, so specificity is 'Generic Boilerplate'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party provider, with specific dates of notification and confirmation, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. The presence of two exact dates qualifies as two hard verifiable facts, leading to a Quantified-Verifiable specificity rating.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph describes a resignation and an interim appointment of executive officers, which pertains to management roles within the company rather than board governance or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the materiality impact of an incident without describing the event itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains no verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, assessment of exfiltrated personal information, and plans to notify affected parties and regulators, which matches the Incident Disclosure category's focus on real event details, response actions, and affected data scope. The details are specific to the company's actions, not generic or sector-wide, supporting Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses containment of an incident and restoration of systems, which is characteristic of incident disclosure content. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph describes responsive actions taken after a cybersecurity incident (closing off the point of unlawful access and providing notice) but does not detail what happened, when, or the scope of the incident, making Incident Disclosure the closest matching category. It contains no verifiable specifics such as dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, or named third‑party firms, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph states that the incident has not had a material impact on operations and that the company has not yet determined whether the incident is reasonably likely to materially impact financial condition or results of operations. It does not describe a specific incident, provide dates, amounts, or other hard facts, and is not tied to any of the specialized categories (Board Governance, Management Role, Risk Management Process, Third-Party Risk, Incident Disclosure, or Strategy Integration). Therefore it best fits the None/Other category, which covers forward-looking disclaimers and non‑cybersecurity statements. The lack of concrete facts makes it Generic Boilerplate rather than Sector‑Adapted, Firm‑Specific, or Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation and collaboration with a cyber insurance provider, indicating internal incident response processes that involve a third-party vendor. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, so the disclosure is generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, engagement of experts, and notification to law enforcement, while stating the incident is not expected to materially affect financial condition. This matches the Incident Disclosure category, which covers descriptions of actual cybersecurity incidents and their impact. No specific facts (dates, amounts, etc.) are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the potential material financial impact of an incident and ongoing forensic analysis, without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains no verifiable dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or firm‑specific details, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's belief that an incident is not likely to have a material impact, which reflects a risk assessment conclusion rather than describing a specific incident, oversight, or third-party risk. It contains no company‑specific facts, dates, or figures, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on assessing the potential material impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific dates, amounts, named entities, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing investigation and monitoring of timing and materiality without describing the incident itself, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named entities, or other verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. The exact date provides one firm‑specific fact, but lacks a second hard fact for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the aftermath of a cyber incident, including system restoration, ongoing operational impacts, and closure of the investigation, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named entities, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a cybersecurity incident causing a system outage on a specific date and describes the activation of an incident response team, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. The date provides a firm‑specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact is present, so specificity is Firm‑Specific rather than Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident where the perpetrator accessed Company systems, exfiltrated and encrypted data on non-production systems, which is characteristic of an Incident Disclosure rather than generic boilerplate, sector-adapted framework, or quantified-verifiable fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes containment and restoration actions related to a cybersecurity incident, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named entities, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph only notes a disruption and directs readers to a status page for updates, without describing what happened, when, scope, or response actions. It lacks the substantive details required for Incident Disclosure or any other specific category, so it best fits None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a company's plan to send notification letters to affected individuals following an investigation, which is a typical disclosure of a cybersecurity incident. Therefore, content_category is Incident Disclosure. The paragraph includes the company's name and a specific filing date, indicating facts unique to this firm, leading to a Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a disruption affecting the company's website and mentions a dedicated communication site, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It also includes the company name and a specific URL, indicating a firm-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It includes a concrete date and a description of the incident, providing at least one firm‑specific fact but not enough hard facts for a Quantified‑Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the impacts and costs of a cyber incident (rebuilding website, hosting, security enhancements), which matches the Incident Disclosure category's focus on describing actual cybersecurity incidents. It lacks specific hard facts like dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is not Quantified-Verifiable or Firm-Specific, and does not reference a recognized standard, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Chose Risk Management Process because the paragraph discusses whether the incident is likely to materially impact financial condition, which pertains to risk assessment. No specific facts (dates, amounts, etc.) were present, so the content is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph contains only generic statements about the incident's impact, lacking any named entities, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the material impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, named entities, or other hard facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation and forensic analysis to determine if personally identifiable information was taken by threat actors, which is a description of a cybersecurity incident. It lacks any specific dates, dollar amounts, named third‑party firms, or named products/tools, so it does not meet the criteria for Quantified‑Verifiable. It also does not name a recognized standard or contain a firm‑specific fact, thus it falls under Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that impacted the company's operations, matching the definition of Incident Disclosure. It also names the company (ENGLOBAL CORP) and provides details about the effect on its systems, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the expected material impact of an incident on the company's quarterly results of operations but explicitly states that the incident is not expected to materially affect overall financial condition or ongoing results. This focuses on risk assessment of operational impact rather than governance or management, leading to the selection of Risk Management Process as the content category. Only one concrete, verifiable fact ('fourth quarter of 2023') is present, which is insufficient for Quantified-Verifiable (requires ≥2 facts) and does not match a named external standard or firm‑specific unique identifier, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's assessment of potential material impact of an incident on financial condition, which aligns with risk management activities. It does not describe a specific incident nor mention any external frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving threat actor access to IT system with sensitive personal information and company notifications, which matches the Incident Disclosure definition. It references a real event at the company, indicating a Firm‑Specific fact.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an incident involving a compromised fourth-party vendor affecting the Bank, indicating an actual cybersecurity incident narrative without specific dates or metrics, thus fits Incident Disclosure. It mentions the Bank and its vendor, which is a fact unique to the filing company, supporting Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the impact of an incident on operations and temporary measures, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discloses a cybersecurity incident with a specific date and describes investigation, containment, and remediation actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. The presence of a specific date (November 29, 2024) provides at least one firm‑specific fact, but not two hard facts required for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a detected cybersecurity incident involving attempted fraud, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It also names a specific entity (Federal Home Loan Bank of New York) and provides a concrete date, making it firm-specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's progress, interim measures, and timeline for restoring key Change Healthcare systems following a cyber incident, which is characteristic of incident disclosure content. It contains a specific date (March 7, 2024) and a firm‑specific reference to Change Healthcare systems, supporting a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Krispy Kreme's operational status, including shop availability, ordering capabilities, disruptions, and delivery reliability, which aligns with risk management processes rather than board governance or incident disclosure. The facts are specific to the company's operations, not generic or sector-wide standards, thus Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal management roles (CFO, CLO, VP, Corporate Controller, Sr. Director, SEC Reporting, Sr. Director of IT) and their function in informing the Audit Committee on cybersecurity risks. This describes management's responsibility for risk oversight rather than board governance or other specific categories, making 'Management Role' the best fit. No hard facts (dates, amounts, etc.) are present, so the paragraph is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Wendy's internal cybersecurity risk management strategy, including frameworks, committees, assessments, infrastructure, personnel, and training, without referencing any specific incident, financial impact, or third‑party vendor oversight. It contains no named dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, or specific third‑party firms or tools, so it lacks hard verifiable facts and is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an unauthorized access incident and mentions notifying regulators and working with law enforcement, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It lacks specific verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named third‑party firms, so it is not Firm‑Specific; it also does not name a recognized standard, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's reliance on IT, storage of sensitive data, exposure to cyber threats, and measures to mitigate risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity incident response, business continuity planning, and ongoing risk management activities such as evaluating incidents, implementing controls, measuring success, and staff training. These details align with the Risk Management Process category, which covers risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, IR planning, and ERM integration. No specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools/products are mentioned, so the paragraph lacks verifiable hard facts and is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including threat assessments, layered security, training, tools, and third‑party assessments, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It contains no hard facts such as specific dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party firms, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate rather than Sector‑Adapted, Firm‑Specific, or Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a multi-layered cybersecurity risk management approach integrated into overall risk management systems, focusing on processes such as controls, training, third-party oversight, monitoring, resiliency, and improvement. It does not mention any specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools/products, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes temporary measures to maintain critical business functions during system restoration, which aligns with risk management processes like business continuity and disaster recovery. The presence of the company name 'Lee' provides a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing cybersecurity risk management activities such as monitoring alerts, conducting penetration tests, evaluating third‑party risks, and requiring SOC reporting, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. The only concrete, verifiable detail is the reference to the year 2024 when the Company worked with third‑party cybersecurity specialists, supporting a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's cybersecurity program focusing on risk identification, mitigation, incident response, and third-party risk management, aligning with the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, policies, standards, and processes for assessing and managing risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, or named third‑party firms, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, policies, roles (CISO, CTO), and oversight, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It includes cybersecurity-specific titles (CISO, CTO) which qualify as firm-specific facts, but lacks hard verifiable details such as exact dates, dollar amounts, or named third-party firms, resulting in a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses the company's reliance on technology, general precautions, and susceptibility to cyber threats, focusing on internal risk exposure rather than a specific incident, board, management, third-party, or strategy topic. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on internal cybersecurity processes, frameworks, and team responsibilities rather than board oversight, incident disclosure, or strategy integration. It identifies a cybersecurity‑specific role (Vice President, Information Technology), which makes the disclosure firm‑specific.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph centers on outsourcing primary cybersecurity responsibilities to a third‑party firm, detailing the vendor’s team composition, experience, and certifications, making vendor oversight the central topic. It includes multiple verifiable specifics such as a stated 30+ years of experience and named certifications (CISSP, CISA, CISM), satisfying the Quantified‑Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity threats, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts on business and operations, which aligns with risk management processes. It does not contain any specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, or named third-party firms or products, so no firm-specific facts are present.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity team activities and general security practices, which are typical management functions. No unique product names, programs, or identifiers specific to Riot Platforms, Inc. are mentioned, so no firm‑specific facts can be extracted.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses risk identification, mitigation, enterprise risk assessment, and protective measures, aligning with the Risk Management Process category. It references the NIST Framework, a recognized standard, supporting Sector-Adapted specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes (defenses, information sharing, third‑party assessments, policies, training, supplier engagement) without focusing on a specific incident, board, or management role. It contains no named standards, dates, numbers, or other firm‑specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Board's oversight of cybersecurity risks, the Risk Committee's responsibilities, and ERM processes, which aligns with Board Governance. It lacks any named entities, specific dates, amounts, or other hard facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, controls, monitoring, and risk management activities, aligning with the Risk Management Process category. While board oversight and management roles are mentioned, they are supportive details rather than the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Company's Agility Preparedness Plan, incident response policies, coordination with Board and law enforcement, and internal oversight activities, which are part of risk management processes for cybersecurity incidents. It includes firm-specific details such as the Agility Plan and Crisis Management Team, indicating a Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses Oracle being a target for cyber threats and describes general risk exposure without providing specific verifiable facts such as numbers, dates, or named entities. It lacks details that would qualify as Firm-Specific or Sector-Adapted, and contains no hard facts for Quantified-Verifiable, leading to a Generic Boilerplate classification. The choice of Risk Management Process is based on the paragraph's focus on cybersecurity risk exposure and potential impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential cybersecurity risks and impacts but does not describe any actual incident with specific details such as dates, amounts, or named entities. It lacks hard facts (specific dates, dollar amounts, etc.), so it is not Quantified-Verifiable, Firm-Specific, or Sector-Adapted. Being a forward-looking statement about risk without concrete incident details aligns with Generic Boilerplate. The content discusses business/financial impact and materiality assessments without incident narrative, fitting Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes (monitoring, incident response plan, third‑party services, expert engagements) without focusing on board oversight, management roles, a specific incident, or financial impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity risk management strategy, covering identification, technical safeguards, incident response, third-party risk, and education. It does not mention any specific dates, amounts, or named third-party products, so no hard facts are present. Therefore, the content is best categorized as Risk Management Process with Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Company's cybersecurity program covering governance, collaborative approach, technical safeguards, incident response, third‑party risk management, and education/awareness. These elements align most closely with the Risk Management Process category, which encompasses risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, IR planning, and ERM integration.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal processes for responding to cybersecurity incidents (using an IRP, periodic attacks, account takeovers) without naming specific dates, amounts, tools, or third parties, fitting the Risk Management Process category and containing no hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risks and the importance of processes to identify, mitigate, and manage threats, noting no material impact from threats in the past year but acknowledging potential future impacts. The mention of the year ended December 31, 2024 provides a specific temporal anchor tied to the company's reporting, supporting a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight, risk management program, monitoring, policies, and training—core elements of a risk management process, not a specific incident. It contains no named third‑party firms, tools, products, dates, or quantities, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and the Audit Committee's responsibilities, which aligns with the Board Governance category (Board/committee oversight of cyber risk). No specific hard facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party entities are present, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's risk assessment program for cybersecurity threats, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks specific measurable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's IT and cybersecurity policies, procedures, and processes for assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity policies, monitoring, detection, training, disaster recovery, and third-party risk management without referencing any specific incident, board role, or named standards/tools. It contains no hard verifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, or named third-party firms, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a comprehensive set of technical, physical, and organizational safeguards implemented to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. The facts are explicitly tied to Cohen & Steers' own systems and policies, indicating firm-specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk management, incident response, third‑party risk oversight, and employee training, but it does not mention any specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third‑party firms, or named tools/products. Therefore no hard verifiable facts are present, leading to Generic Boilerplate specificity. The content aligns closely with the Risk Management Process category, which covers identifying, preventing, mitigating cybersecurity threats and managing incident response.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company's internal IT risk management processes—CTO-led department responsibilities, a dedicated governance committee, and an incident response plan—aligning with Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk management, incidents, threats, and impacts on business operations, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It contains no hard facts such as specific dates, dollar amounts, or named third-party firms, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the roles, qualifications, and responsibilities of the CISO, CCO, and information security team, indicating management oversight of the cybersecurity program. Specific facts such as certifications, academic credentials, and years of experience are unique to Bain Capital's personnel, supporting a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses USCF's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, policy compliance, and due diligence on third-party service providers, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category's focus on internal risk assessment, framework adoption, and vulnerability management. It does not contain specific, verifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third‑party products, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Chief Information Officer's role in managing risk, referencing over 25 years of experience, certifications (CISSP, CISA), and adherence to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, which is a recognized standard, leading to the selection of Management Role as content_category and Sector-Adapted as specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities—policies, committees, controls, and third‑party risk management—fitting the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third‑party firms, or named tools, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities, qualifications, and reporting lines of specific management roles (CTO, CIO, CISO) rather than board oversight or broader risk processes. It includes multiple specific numeric durations of experience, which qualify as hard verifiable facts, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's incident response plan, CISO responsibilities, and related risk management activities, indicating a focus on risk management processes rather than generic governance or strategy.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk management, board oversight, policies, standards, and processes for assessing, identifying, and managing material risks from cyber threats, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools/products, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the President and CEO's responsibilities for overseeing cybersecurity risk management and incident reporting, which aligns with the Management Role category. It contains multiple verifiable specifics such as named individuals, companies, and exact date ranges, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses board oversight, audit committee responsibilities, and cybersecurity risk management processes without mentioning any specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named products/tools. Therefore it fits the Board Governance category (board/committee oversight of cyber risk) and lacks hard facts, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses Northern Trust's internal cybersecurity risk management program, referencing recognized standards like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and CRI Profile, but does not contain any unique facts about the company itself. Therefore it aligns with the Sector-Adapted specificity (named frameworks without firm‑unique facts) and the Risk Management Process category (focus on internal risk identification, assessment, and governance).


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on managing risks arising from third-party vendors, including assessments of vendor security practices, contractual security measures, and using the FAIR model to quantify third-party cyber risk. This aligns with the Third-Party Risk category, which covers vendor/supplier security oversight and contractual standards.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines internal risk management, incident response, monitoring, and third-party oversight processes without naming specific individuals, dates, amounts, or tools, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. The absence of verifiable firm‑specific facts results in a Generic Boilerplate specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity risk management strategy and processes (incident response, technical safeguards, training, third‑party risk, threat intelligence), fitting the Risk Management Process category. It provides a firm‑specific fact—the named ICSIRP plan—but lacks a second hard verifiable fact required for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses using third-party service providers to identify, assess, and manage cybersecurity risks, including third-party cybersecurity software, application providers, hosting companies, and vendor management programs. It focuses on risks arising from third parties rather than internal processes, board governance, management roles, incident disclosures, or strategy integration, making Third-Party Risk the most appropriate category. No firm‑specific facts such as named entities, standards, dates, amounts, or specific tools are present, so specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph emphasizes risk assessment, continuous monitoring, vendor compliance, and internal risk management processes, aligning with the Risk Management Process category. It also includes multiple company‑specific details such as named ISO standards, internal frameworks, and a dedicated security committee, which satisfy the Firm‑Specific specificity requirement.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an incident response (IR) plan, escalation process, annual testing, tabletop exercises, and coordination with internal teams—all core aspects of a risk management process as defined (risk assessment, framework adoption, monitoring, IR planning).


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CIO's responsibilities, experience, and oversight of the cybersecurity team, indicating a management role. It mentions a SOC 2 report but lacks any firm‑specific verifiable facts, making the disclosure sector‑adapted rather than firm‑specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes each subsidiary's security program, incident reporting, and enterprise-wide IT team roles, which align with risk management activities. It also names specific executives (CISO, CIO, General Counsel, CFO, CEO) and the documented severity classification, indicating firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential impacts of cybersecurity risks and risk factors, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category (risk assessment, framework adoption, etc.). It lacks specific dates, amounts, or named entities, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on internal processes such as disaster recovery, incident response, coordination, training, and assessments, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. The mention of the Company's CIO as a specific cybersecurity‑specific title provides a firm‑specific fact, but lacks the two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a detected cybersecurity incident, including date, scope, response actions, and impact, meeting the Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains a specific date (May 1, 2024), which qualifies as an IS fact, making it Firm-Specific but lacking a second hard fact for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the Audit Committee and describes annual review processes, fitting the Board Governance category. It includes one cybersecurity‑specific role (the CTO), which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact but does not provide two or more hard verifiable facts needed for a Quantified‑Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with timeline, impact, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains two specific dates (August 25, 2025 and September 2, 2025), providing two hard verifiable facts, qualifying it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph does not describe any specific cybersecurity incident; it only states that no incidents have been identified and refers to the Risk Factors section. Therefore it matches the None/Other category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, its scope, response actions, and material impact, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It contains a single verifiable date (July 25, 2024) but lacks a second hard fact, resulting in a Firm‑Specific specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on senior management's responsibility for creating and recommending cybersecurity risk appetite metrics to the Board, making management the grammatical subject. It contains no named roles, dates, numbers, frameworks, or other verifiable specifics, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving Coinbase, including date, threat actor actions, data accessed, and company response, which matches the Incident Disclosure category. It also contains specific facts identifying the company involved, supporting Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the process of investigating a cybersecurity threat to determine if an actual incident occurred, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no specific dates, amounts, or named entities, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a lack of formal cybersecurity policies, processes, and dedicated personnel, indicating a gap in board oversight of cyber risk, which aligns with Board Governance. No specific dates, dollar amounts, or named entities are present, supporting a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, including assessments, training, and threat monitoring, without referencing any specific incidents, named frameworks, dates, or quantifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's reporting lines and collaboration with CIO/CTO, making management roles the primary topic. It includes the cybersecurity‑specific title 'CISO', which qualifies as a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities and reporting to the Board, indicating board-level governance of cybersecurity risk. It also references Kroger-specific roles (CIO, CISO, Board) making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses oversight of cybersecurity risks from third-party service providers, risk assessments, and contractual obligations, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or specific standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses AFG's risk management and strategy regarding cybersecurity threats, which matches the 'Risk Management Process' category. It includes specific details about the company's filing (type, date, section) and references to the SEC, indicating facts unique to this company's disclosure, leading to a Firm‑Specific specificity classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generic risk management procedures for electronic information systems without any company-specific details, indicating a generic boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses forward-looking statements and safe harbor provisions, which aligns with the forward-looking disclaimer content of the None/Other category. It contains no identifiable hard facts such as dates, amounts, or named third‑party firms, so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal safeguards and incident response planning, which aligns with risk management activities rather than governance, management, third‑party risk, incident disclosure, or strategy. It contains no hard facts (dates, amounts, etc.), so it is treated as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes risk management and mitigation measures, policies, incident response, vulnerability management, disaster recovery, audits, and controls, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No specific verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities are present, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes providing recurring mandatory information security training to associates based on access, risk, roles, and behaviors, which aligns with risk management activities such as training on risk assessment and vulnerability management. Therefore the category is Risk Management Process. The paragraph lacks any named third‑party firms, tools, products, dates, amounts or percentages, so no specific facts can be extracted. It is a general statement that could apply to any organization and does not reference a particular sector standard or firm‑specific detail, thus the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses using third-party service providers to manage cybersecurity risks, which matches the Third-Party Risk category (vendor/supplier oversight). No specific named entities, dates, or numbers are present, so specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses JetBlue's internal cybersecurity strategy, focusing on detection, analysis, response, management of cyber risks, and resilience, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It does not contain any specific dates, dollar amounts, or named third-party facts, so specific_facts is empty. The description identifies JetBlue's unique safety and cybersecurity approach, making it Firm-Specific rather than generic or sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal oversight processes for projects and vendors via Project Management and Vendor Management offices, which aligns with risk management activities such as oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, but contains no specific dates, amounts, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board-level Risk Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks and its engagement with management, making Board Governance the most appropriate category. The mention of the 'Risk Committee' as a named non‑generic committee provides a firm‑specific fact, but lacks two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified‑Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's lack of operations and cybersecurity risk, indicating no specific cybersecurity content; thus it fits None/Other. The statements are specific to the company's situation, supporting Firm‑Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the CISO and VP of Information Security's extensive experience and roles, which are specific to the company's management, indicating a Management Role content. The facts about years of experience are firm-specific identifiers, not tied to any external standard, leading to Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the lack of internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity awareness training, phishing testing, mandatory training, newsletters, and insurance coverage, which are part of the company's risk management processes rather than referencing a specific incident, board oversight, management roles, or third-party risks.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risk, receipt of updates, and incident communication processes, which aligns with board/committee oversight of cyber risk. It contains no named entities, dates, amounts, or verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


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


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the board of directors discussing and reviewing cybersecurity risk with management, indicating board oversight. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or specific frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program focused on identifying, protecting, detecting, responding to, and recovering from threats, which aligns with risk management processes. It also references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, a recognized standard, supporting a Sector-Adapted specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses board and management oversight of risk management, policies, standards, processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks specific named entities, dates, or numeric facts, so it is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal audit, risk assessment, remediation, and oversight processes, focusing on its own risk management activities rather than board governance or specific management roles. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or standards that would make it firm-specific or sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's risk-based approach to security controls, their potential inadequacies, and the delayed understanding of security events, which aligns with internal risk management processes. It lacks any named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, rendering it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes maintaining an incident response plan with immediate actions, escalation to the CEO, and long-term remediation strategies. This aligns with risk management processes (incident response planning) rather than describing a specific incident (which would be Incident Disclosure) or referencing a named standard or third party. No verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities are present, supporting a generic boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's cybersecurity risk management objectives, improvement initiatives, and periodic review processes led by the Technology Leadership Centre under the CTO, focusing on internal risk management activities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes specific risk mitigation actions taken by IMAX CORP's information security team, aligning with the Risk Management Process category. It references the company's own infrastructure and practices, indicating a firm-specific context rather than generic or standard-based content.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal risk-based security controls, mitigation, and detection without referencing any specific dates, metrics, named tools, or third parties, fitting the Risk Management Process category and containing no verifiable specifics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the CISO and other management executives overseeing cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with the Management Role category focusing on CISO/CTO/CIO identification and reporting lines. It includes the specific fact of a CISO, a cybersecurity-specific title, making it firm-specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph states the company has no known cybersecurity threats that could materially impact it, which reflects a risk management assessment of lacking threats.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses management's operational responsibility for cybersecurity, risk assessment, incident prevention, vulnerability assessments, and monitoring, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks specific hard facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details internal risk assessment processes, monitoring tools, policies, training, and insurance, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It names the CIS standard, providing a sector‑specific fact but no firm‑specific details, resulting in a Sector‑Adapted specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on who has a role in the cybersecurity risk management program, listing management roles (CIO, Director of IT, enterprise risk management group) alongside the Board, indicating management roles as the main focus. The mention of the CIO, a cybersecurity‑specific title, provides a firm‑specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, including the Cybersecurity Executive Council and Compliance Committee, and notes that policies are discussed with the Board. This aligns with the Board Governance category, which covers board/committee oversight of cyber risk, briefing cadence, and board cyber expertise.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Head of Cybersecurity's duties in monitoring incidents and informing leadership, indicating a management role focus, with board oversight mentioned only as a downstream consequence.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cyber risk and management's duty to report incidents to the Board, with no description of actual events or specific internal processes, aligning with Board Governance. It lacks any verifiable specifics such as dates, dollar amounts, or named tools, leading to a generic boilerplate classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, including processes like identification of critical systems, network segmentation, access controls, continuous monitoring, and patch management, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It lacks any named dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, or specific third-party firms/tools, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the duties of the CIO, CTO, and Information Security Officer in overseeing the bank's information security program, which aligns with the Management Role category. It does not contain any specific dates, amounts, or named entities, so it lacks verifiable facts and is classified as Generic Boilerplate for specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on using third-party service providers to expand capabilities and evaluate the cybersecurity program, which aligns with vendor oversight. It lacks any specific dates, numbers, named firms, or tools, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes BlackRock's internal cybersecurity program, including governance, safeguards, incident response, and third‑party risk management as parts of its ERM framework, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It contains specific facts such as the CISO title and named committees (Risk Committee, TRCC, ERC) that are unique to this disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board of Directors' Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Board Governance category definition of board/committee oversight of cyber risk. It also mentions specific cybersecurity roles (CISO) and a named internal program (Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan), meeting the IS list criteria for a Firm‑Specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing monitoring, testing, and third‑party involvement in the IS Program and related security functions, which aligns with risk management activities rather than governance, management, incident disclosure, or strategy.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity control practices such as vulnerability testing via third-party audits, vendor control reviews, and weakness reporting to leadership, which aligns with the company's own risk management processes rather than board oversight, specific management roles, or vendor-focused risk.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing risks from unauthorized occurrences, with only a brief mention of a third-party security program as a component. It contains no named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses risk management, the ERM process, organizational structures, procedural measures, and response plans related to cybersecurity risk, which aligns with the 'Risk Management Process' category. It also references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, a recognized standard, supporting classification as 'Sector-Adapted' rather than 'Firm-Specific' or 'Generic Boilerplate'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal incident response and vulnerability management processes, escalation to management, and reporting to the audit committee, which aligns with risk management activities. It does not mention any named individuals, dates, dollar amounts, or third‑party entities, so no firm‑specific facts are present.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risks and their potential impact on business strategy, operations, and financial condition, which aligns with risk management processes rather than incident disclosure or other categories. It lacks specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating generic boilerplate content.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses vendor due diligence, encryption, access controls, and a statement of no known material cyber risks affecting the company. This aligns with risk management activities rather than board governance, management role, or third‑party risk. It lacks any named standards, specific dates, dollar amounts, or unique company identifiers, so it is not sector‑adapted, firm‑specific, or quantified‑verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on vendor due diligence and contract provisions in third-party procurement, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk factors and potential future impacts, which aligns with risk management disclosure. It lacks specific, verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, so it is classified as generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity program, policies, controls, and use of industry frameworks such as HIPAA and NIST CSF. It explicitly states the company has an active HITRUST certification and SOC 2 Type II compliance, which are firm-specific facts identifying unique aspects of Teladoc's disclosure. No two hard verifiable facts (e.g., specific dates, dollar amounts) are present, so specificity is not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on engaging third-party assessors, incident response experts, external counsel, and collaboration with industry experts for security services, making vendor oversight the primary focus. It contains no named entities, dates, amounts, or other verifiable specifics, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on reliance on third-party service providers and the potential impact of cyber-attacks on those providers, which matches the Third-Party Risk category. No specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools/products are present, so the specificity defaults to Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the SVP/IT Manager and ISO roles with expertise in information security and cybersecurity risk management, indicating a management function. It includes two numeric facts (22 years and 18 years) which are hard verifiable facts, satisfying the Quantified-Verifiable criterion. No unique firm‑specific identifiers or recognized standards are mentioned, so it is not Firm‑Specific or Sector‑Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on executive management's responsibility for cybersecurity risk oversight and strategy, which aligns with the Management Role category. It lacks any named roles, dates, numbers, or other verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Senior Director of Information Technology reporting cyber threat updates to executive officers and the Audit Committee, indicating a management role focus. It lacks any named frameworks, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on the CISO's role, experience, reporting line, and mentions the COO's service on the Risk Committee, indicating management role as the main topic. It contains specific facts such as the CISO title, 20 years of experience, and the named Risk Committee, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal process for assessing and notifying about potential cybersecurity incidents via a subcommittee, which aligns with risk assessment and internal monitoring activities characteristic of the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any specific dates, amounts, or named entities, indicating it is generic boilerplate rather than firm‑specific, sector‑adapted, or quantifiable‑verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the roles and experience of the CCO and CISO in overseeing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with the Management Role category. It includes specific details such as the CISO's start date and tenure figures, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts needed for a Quantified-Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risk management policies, monitoring, training, and mitigation steps, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It lacks specific quantifiable facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named third parties, leading to a Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, including risk assessments, framework adoption, third‑party risk management, and control testing, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It references the NIST framework but lacks any company‑specific dates, numbers, or named entities, resulting in a Sector‑Adapted specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the CISO providing cybersecurity updates to the IOC during regularly scheduled meetings and executive sessions, reflecting board/committee oversight of cyber risk. It contains no specific dates, dollar amounts, headcounts, percentages, named third-party firms, or named tools, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of past cybersecurity attacks and outlines potential risks from such attacks, which aligns with risk factor disclosure rather than a specific incident. No concrete facts (dates, amounts, named entities) are present, supporting a generic classification.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk assessment processes and safeguards, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It contains no verifiable specifics such as dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risk and reporting to the Board, which matches the Board Governance category. It lacks any named entities, dates, numbers, or specific frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Cybersecurity Council's role in overseeing cybersecurity risks for the company's senior management and Board, referencing internal governance structures and practices specific to PSEG (Public Service Enterprise Group Inc). This indicates board-level oversight rather than management role or risk process. The mention of PSEG-specific entities (e.g., PSEG's Corporate Secretary, Cybersecurity Event Escalation and Incident Response Practice) provides a firm-specific fact, supporting the Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generic risk‑management activities such as monitoring, reporting, correcting system flaws, and reviewing third‑party/cloud services for cybersecurity threats, which are typical of a risk management process and contain no firm‑specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal technical safeguards (firewalls, anti-malware, monitoring agents) deployed to protect information systems, which falls under the company's own risk management processes. It contains no named products, dates, numbers, or third-party references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal incident response processes, roles, and escalation procedures without naming specific dates, amounts, tools, or third parties, indicating a generic risk management process disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the VP of IT and Facilities' duties related to cybersecurity, making the management role the grammatical subject. It contains no named frameworks, dates, numbers, or other details that would render it firm‑specific or sector‑adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal education, awareness training, policy reviews, and testing of security controls, which are components of the company's risk management process. It contains no named entities, dates, numbers, or standards that would make it firm-specific or quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity capabilities such as a dedicated security center, monitoring, detection, and mitigation activities, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category focusing on the company's own internal processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity team activities: monitoring threats, using threat intelligence, increasing vulnerability awareness, and mitigating risks. These activities align with the Risk Management Process category, which includes risk assessment, framework adoption, vulnerability management, monitoring, and IR planning. No specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities are present, so the paragraph is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Technology Committee assisting the Board with oversight of technology strategy, technology risk, information management, and security risks, which aligns with the Board Governance category's focus on board/committee oversight of cyber risk and related oversight responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the role and responsibilities of the CIO within the company's information security structure, indicating a management role rather than board governance. The details are specific to this company's internal structure, supporting a firm-specific classification.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to cybersecurity incidents, including policy, leadership team involvement, and risk mitigation efforts, which aligns with the Incident Disclosure category (description of actual incidents, response actions). No unique facts about Thor Industries are mentioned, so the paragraph is generic boilerplate applicable to any company.