content_category: Third-Party Risk

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about overseeing cybersecurity risks posed by third parties and their systems, which squarely fits Third-Party Risk. It contains no named vendors, tools, dates, frameworks, roles, or other company-specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.

provider: openai

stage: benchmark


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities—designing, maintaining, updating, and monitoring safeguards after risk assessments. It contains no firm-specific roles, dates, frameworks, named systems, or other qualifying specific facts.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality statement about the potential effect of future cybersecurity incidents on business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, with a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, processes, third-party risk, or any actual incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality-oriented statement about how cybersecurity threats could affect the company's business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, with a cross-reference to Risk Factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, processes, third-party oversight, or any actual incident.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: This paragraph is a biographical description of a business executive with no substantive cybersecurity governance, management, risk process, incident, or strategy disclosure. Because it is non-cyber content, it falls under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a standalone materiality assessment that cybersecurity challenges have not materially affected operations or financial condition, which falls under Strategy Integration. The cross-reference to Risk Factors is ancillary and does not add substantive cyber process or incident detail.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph is about Board-level oversight of cybersecurity risk, with the Board and its committee as the grammatical subjects. It contains only generic governance language and references to the Audit Committee, which does not qualify as a specific fact under the rules.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, risk assessment, and controls for identifying and managing cyber risk, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains only generalized process language with no qualifying specific facts, named frameworks, roles, dates, tools, or firms.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to other sections of the 10-K for discussion of potential cybersecurity impacts and does not provide substantive cybersecurity disclosure itself. It contains no incident narrative, governance detail, process description, or materiality conclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices, specifically employee security awareness, training, and phishing testing, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains only generic practices and no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, dates, tools, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity activities—identifying threats, detecting attacks, protecting data, evaluating risks, and participating in threat-intelligence sharing—so it is best classified as Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, firms, tools, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices—employee awareness training, phishing exercises, and tabletop incident response exercises—so it fits Risk Management Process. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, named roles, dates, tools, firms, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substantive point is a materiality statement that cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected the company to date and may affect business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition in the future. That makes it a Strategy Integration disclosure rather than a process or governance description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity-related controls and response processes for unsupported applications, including access controls, security reviews, disaster recovery planning, and use of consultants after a breach. Although third-party consultants are mentioned, vendor oversight is not the central topic, so this fits Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal approach to identifying and managing cybersecurity risk, including ERM integration and risk assessments. It does not focus on board oversight, a specific management role, third-party/vendor oversight, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity awareness, training, and policy practices, making it a risk management process disclosure. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named roles, frameworks, dates, tools, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment—that cybersecurity breaches have not materially affected the company to date and could materially affect it in the future—rather than describing governance, management roles, or internal processes. Its references to risk factors and third parties are general and do not provide substantive incident details or firm-specific cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality statement that no cybersecurity incidents have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the company, which falls under Strategy Integration. The rest is only a cross-reference to risk factors and does not add substantive incident or process detail.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight, with the Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risk exposures and receiving updates from management. It contains no qualifying specific facts because Audit Committee, annual briefings, and unnamed third-party assessments are generic governance disclosures.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity risk assessment, threat monitoring, and detection activities, making it a risk management process disclosure rather than a personnel-focused management role discussion. The mention of the Vice President of Information Security/CISO is incidental oversight context, but the substance is about what the program does.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion about whether any cybersecurity incident has materially affected the company, without describing a specific event or incident details. It uses standard boilerplate language and contains no qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment: prior cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s operations or financial condition. The brief mention of past incidents is incidental and lacks incident-specific narrative, so this fits Strategy Integration rather than Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal approach to assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risk and states that these processes are integrated into overall risk management. It contains no firm-specific details, named roles, committees, frameworks, dates, or other qualifying facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment process, with third-party experts mentioned only as part of that process rather than as the central topic of vendor oversight. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named firms, dates, frameworks, or uniquely identified roles.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity oversight and evaluation process—an enterprise-wide management program that assesses cybersecurity program effectiveness. Although management bodies are mentioned, the focus is on how the process operates rather than on a specific individual’s role or board oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substance is a boilerplate materiality/risk statement that cybersecurity incidents could affect the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, along with a note that no recent material incidents have occurred. It does not describe a specific incident or internal cyber process, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about oversight of third-party service providers, including due diligence, monitoring, incident notification, and exit planning, which makes Third-Party Risk the best fit. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, firms, tools, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph is about the company's own cybersecurity measures for protecting systems and data, which fits Risk Management Process. However, it is purely high-level and does not describe any concrete process, framework, role, or other company-specific detail.


reasoning: This paragraph provides only general background about the importance of the company's systems and data to its operations, without describing governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, strategy impacts, or any actual incident. It is therefore best treated as non-substantive contextual disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight, with the Audit Committee and Board receiving and discussing cybersecurity-related information from management. It contains only generic governance language and standard oversight descriptions, without any qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substantive point is a materiality assessment that no previous cybersecurity threats have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the company, which fits Strategy Integration. The rest is generic risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors, without describing a specific incident or concrete internal cyber process.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats and incidents have not materially affected the company’s business, strategy, operations, or financial results. The brief cross-reference to Risk Factors does not change the main focus from a strategy/materiality conclusion.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, its operational disruption, data exfiltration, and remediation actions, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. Its specificity comes from the explicit date of the incident; the remaining details are largely general and not independently verifiable hard facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion stating that known cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company. The added reference to a risk factor does not change the main point from a materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, remediation, testing, and audit processes, with third parties mentioned only as support to those internal processes. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named firms, frameworks, roles, tools, dates, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on continued investment in IT security capabilities and organizational growth, which is most aligned with how cybersecurity is integrated into company strategy and resourcing. It does not describe concrete governance structures, named management roles, or specific operational processes in detail.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's own cybersecurity risk management activities—using outside experts, risk assessments, tabletop exercises, and audits—rather than oversight of third-party vendors. It includes one qualifying firm-specific fact, the specific date reference to 2024, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment and testing processes, with the reference to reporting results to the Audit Committee being secondary. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, roles, tools, firms, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management program and how it identifies, assesses, and manages cyber risk, including integration into enterprise risk management. Its only qualifying specific detail is the named NIST framework, which supports Sector-Adapted specificity rather than a firm-unique level.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight structures for cybersecurity, including delegation and committee governance, so Board Governance is the best fit. It contains firm-specific governance details such as a named Cybersecurity Steering Committee and specific cybersecurity-related roles, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities—using outside assessors and consultants to support security assessments and incident reviews—rather than focusing on board oversight, management qualifications, or vendor risk as the central topic. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named firms, frameworks, dates, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident involving AMCA, including when the Company was notified and the affected third party. Although it also mentions litigation and cross-references, the central topic is the disclosed incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity incidents or threats have not materially impaired operations or financial standing, with a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, or a concrete incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company oversees cybersecurity risks posed by vendors, service providers, and other third parties, which fits Third-Party Risk. It does not include any qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, firms, tools, dates, or quantified verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity controls, training, and oversight processes, including how it manages risks from its own systems and third-party technology. Although third-party risk is mentioned, it is presented as one component of the broader internal cybersecurity program rather than the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight, with the Audit Committee as the grammatical subject overseeing cybersecurity risk and receiving updates. The mention of the CISO is secondary and does not change the main focus from board governance.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity risk oversight and integration into its enterprise risk management and internal audit processes, rather than focusing on the officer’s qualifications or background. The named cybersecurity-specific role makes the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity practices—employee training and use of technology-based tools to deter, detect, and report threats—so it is best categorized as Risk Management Process. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, dates, tools, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment and risk management activities, including assessments and use of external assessors, so it is best categorized as Risk Management Process. It does not include named frameworks, specific roles, named firms, dates, or other qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management inputs and support processes, including how internal experts inform security teams and supplement incident response. It does not focus on board oversight, a specific management role, third-party risk as a central topic, or a particular incident.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on how the company monitors and manages cybersecurity risk through internal processes and information sources, rather than on the qualifications of the individuals or board oversight. It includes firm-specific cybersecurity roles (CISO and Sr. Director of Information Security), which makes it more specific than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal incident review, triage, escalation, and response processes, making Risk Management Process the best fit. Although management roles are mentioned, they appear as part of the escalation workflow rather than as the main subject of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment—that no cybersecurity incident has materially affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition—so it fits Strategy Integration. Although it briefly references a past incident, the incident narrative is secondary to the materiality conclusion and risk-factor cross-reference.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight, delegation to board committees, and updates provided to the Board and Audit Committee regarding cybersecurity. Although management titles are mentioned, they appear only as sources of reporting to the Board rather than as the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph’s central topic is the company’s oversight of cybersecurity risks posed by third-party service providers, which fits Third-Party Risk. It does not include any qualifying specific facts such as named committees, frameworks, dates, firms, tools, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, policies, and controls, with board references serving as context rather than the main subject. Its only qualifying specific detail is the named NIST framework, which supports Sector-Adapted rather than firm-specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal cybersecurity practice—employee incident and management training related to sensitive-data systems—so it fits Risk Management Process. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named roles, frameworks, dates, tools, firms, or verifiable numbers.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal privacy-related governance and operational processes—software use, assessments, data mapping, and regulatory adjustments—rather than board oversight, a specific executive's qualifications, or a third-party relationship. It includes a firm-specific team composition, which makes it more specific than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management approach and framework for identifying, assessing, and managing cyber risks, which fits Risk Management Process. Its only concrete detail is adoption of the recognized NIST framework, without firm-unique roles, dates, vendors, or quantified facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk identification and awareness activities, such as risk assessments, role matrices, threat intelligence sharing, and employee training. It does not focus on board oversight, management qualifications, vendors as the central topic, or any actual cybersecurity incident.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity and operational risk management processes, including how CSWAT reviews and manages security, continuity, and related controls. Although a named team is mentioned, the focus is on the function and process rather than board oversight or an individual management role.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Board of Directors and the Board Risk Committee, with management roles mentioned as part of that governance structure. It includes firm-specific named committees and cybersecurity-relevant roles, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity incident detection, analysis, mitigation, prioritization, escalation, and reporting procedures, which makes Risk Management Process the best fit. Although the Board and Audit and Finance Committee are mentioned, they are recipients of escalation rather than the main subject of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Audit Committee, which receives cyber reports and engages with management on cybersecurity matters, so Board Governance is the best fit. It includes firm-specific management role facts (CIO and CISO), but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity, making Board Governance the best fit. It does not contain qualifying firm-specific facts under the rubric because the Board, Audit Committee, and generic annual/quarterly reporting cadences are not counted as specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the potential business, operational, financial, reputational, and legal impacts of hypothetical cybersecurity events rather than describing governance roles or the company's specific risk management processes. It is framed as a broad material-impact risk discussion, which fits Strategy Integration best.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the Board and its committees oversee cybersecurity and enterprise risk, with management and the CISO mentioned in support of that oversight structure. It includes firm-specific governance details such as the CISO role and named non-generic committees, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity event, including the type of incident, affected systems, investigation findings, and response-related conclusions, so Incident Disclosure is the best fit. It includes one qualifying firm-specific fact—a specific month and year—but not two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Tredegar's own cybersecurity program and its risk-based processes for preventing, detecting, investigating, and mitigating cyber risks. Although third-party service providers are mentioned, vendor oversight is only one component of the company's broader internal cybersecurity process, so the main topic is risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Board of Directors and Audit Committee, with management roles mentioned in support of that governance structure. It includes one qualifying firm-specific fact—a cybersecurity-relevant management title, the Chief Information Officer.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity event, including what happened (unauthorized network access, encryption of applications, exfiltration of files) and the company’s response actions, so it is Incident Disclosure. It includes one qualifying specific fact—a precise date—which makes it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company evaluates and imposes security requirements on third-party providers, making vendor oversight the central topic. It does not include any qualifying firm-specific facts such as named roles, committees, dates, firms, tools, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity policies, control domains, and operational risk management practices. Although it mentions third-party information security, that is only one component of the broader internal cybersecurity process, so the central topic is risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph is about oversight by a board committee receiving cybersecurity updates, so Board Governance is the best fit. It contains no named committee, roles, dates, frameworks, or other qualifying specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment and control selection process, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It does not name any specific framework, role, committee, tool, date, or other qualifying firm-specific fact.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about identified management roles and the SDIS's qualifications, experience, and responsibilities, so Management Role is the best fit. It includes multiple concrete, verifiable facts, including named cybersecurity roles, a quantified experience level, and named certifications.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity processes—monitoring, incident response, and disclosure procedures—rather than on the qualifications of individual managers or board oversight. The only qualifying firm-specific fact is the named internal team, the InfoSec Leadership Team.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily discloses that an actual ransomware incident occurred and briefly describes its effect, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. It includes one qualifying specific fact—a specific year tied to the incident—but not two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices, including assessments, audits, threat intelligence use, and employee training, so it is best categorized as Risk Management Process. Although much of the language is generic, the reference to the CIST of cybersecurity professionals is a firm-specific named team detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices, including employee training and formal procedures, with vendor review mentioned only as one component of those processes. Although cyber insurance is noted, the main focus is on operational risk management rather than financial/materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph is principally about how the Board and a Board committee receive cybersecurity reporting and education, so Board Governance is the best fit. It includes a firm-specific cybersecurity role fact—the CISO—but otherwise consists mostly of standard governance language.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main focus is on the potential business and financial impact of cybersecurity risks, including a materiality-style statement that the company has not had material breaches or related material costs. Although it briefly mentions ERM, it does not primarily describe the company’s cybersecurity process in detail, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity, including how management reports upward, so Board Governance is the best fit. It includes cybersecurity-specific management roles (CIO and CISO), which makes the disclosure firm-specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's main focus is the company's oversight of cybersecurity risks posed by third parties, vendors, and service providers, which fits Third-Party Risk. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named firms, dates, frameworks, tools, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal process for integrating cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, including identifying, assessing, monitoring, mitigating, and escalating risks. It does not focus on board oversight, management qualifications, vendors, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph frames cybersecurity in terms of overall business objectives, digital efforts, and potential adverse effects on operations and results, rather than describing governance, management roles, or specific risk-management processes. It is high-level risk and business-impact language without incident details or firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the board and its committees oversee cybersecurity, making Board Governance the best fit. It includes firm-specific governance details such as the board enterprise risk committee, a cybersecurity subcommittee, and engagement with the CISO.


reasoning: The board and its committees are the grammatical subject, and the paragraph focuses on their oversight of cybersecurity and risk governance. It includes firm-specific facts such as named committees and the CISO reporting structure, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substance is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected the company’s business, results, or financial condition, with only a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, processes, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident response plan, protocols, and exercises, which are elements of its cybersecurity risk management process. It is not primarily about the qualifications of the leaders, but about how the response function operates.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on disclosure obligations and securities-trading compliance considerations related to cybersecurity incidents, which fits strategy/materiality-oriented integration rather than operational cybersecurity risk processes. It does not describe a specific incident, board role, management role, or vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity activities and controls—framework use, program updates, audits, testing, governance assignments, and employee training—so it is best categorized as Risk Management Process. Its only qualifying specific detail is the named CIS framework, without firm-unique verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was identified, that it involved ransomware, and the company’s response and recovery actions. It includes one qualifying hard fact—a specific date—so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is chiefly about the company's risk management program and how cybersecurity fits within it, with the CISO and board committee mentioned as part of that structure. It is not primarily about the CISO's qualifications or the board's oversight activities alone.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity function—directing information security activities and leading development of the cybersecurity risk management strategy—rather than on the individual's qualifications or background. Although a management title is mentioned, the substance is about what the function does, making Risk Management Process the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management approach—monitoring, assessing, and responding to incidents—rather than on management personnel qualifications or board oversight. It contains no qualifying specific facts from the allowed list, only generic process language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily narrates a real cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, what was affected, the operational and data impacts, and the company’s response. It also includes multiple verifiable facts such as specific dates and the number of lawsuits, which makes the disclosure Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity incident, including what happened, what data was affected, and the response actions taken. It contains multiple independently verifiable facts, including specific dates, a named software product, and a precise affected-customer count.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about who at the board level oversees risk management, with the Board of Directors as the main subject. The references to the Chief Risk Officer support the oversight description but do not make management role identification the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity improvements and control enhancements after an event, such as hardening environments, training, multifactor authentication, and endpoint detection capabilities. Although it references a prior incident, it does not describe the incident itself; the main topic is the company’s risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity governance and risk management process—how authority is delegated, who participates, and what the ISC does. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is on the functioning of the ISC rather than the qualifications or biography of a management person.


reasoning: The paragraph does not describe an actual cyber incident or a risk management process; instead, its main point is a materiality/status statement that the company has not experienced a material cybersecurity incident and is not aware of one affecting service providers. That makes it a strategy/materiality disclosure rather than incident narrative or third-party risk oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity escalation, assessment, response, and reporting process. Although it mentions the VP of Tech, the focus is on how incidents are handled functionally rather than on the executive’s qualifications or role background.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes board-level oversight: the Audit and Finance Committee is identified as overseeing the cybersecurity program and receiving updates on cyber-related matters. Although management roles are named, they are presented mainly as reporting into the committee rather than as the main subject.


reasoning: This paragraph provides general background about the company's reliance on technology systems, data, and industrial control systems, but it does not describe governance, management roles, a cybersecurity risk management process, third-party oversight, an actual incident, or materiality/strategy impacts. It is therefore best classified as other contextual disclosure rather than a substantive Item 1C category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management approach, specifically the frameworks it uses to assess and improve its processes. It does not center on board oversight, management qualifications, third-party risk, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk identification, assessment, and management processes, including integration into enterprise risk management. Although the CIO and CISO are named, they are mentioned as overseers of the process rather than the paragraph focusing on their qualifications or backgrounds.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including when the unauthorized access was discovered, the operational effects, and the company’s response and recovery actions. It includes multiple specific dates, which makes the disclosure quantitatively verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about which management roles are responsible for cybersecurity, their experience, reporting line, and management accountability. Although the ERMC is mentioned, the focus is on management personnel rather than board oversight or broader process details.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, the operational disruption it caused, the response taken, and resulting business effects. It also includes verifiable date and dollar-amount facts, which makes the disclosure quantified and externally checkable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity monitoring, incident response, and employee training processes, so it fits Risk Management Process rather than focusing on the individual executive. It includes firm-specific details through a cybersecurity-specific role and a specifically identified cross-functional incident response team.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity activities such as monitoring, analysis, remediation, reporting, and incident planning. Although it mentions outside vendors for testing, vendor oversight is not the central topic, so the best fit is Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a materiality assessment that cybersecurity risks and prior incidents have not materially affected the company and are not expected to do so long term. The reference to Risk Factors is secondary and does not change the primary focus from strategy/materiality disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management practices, controls, and employee training, making Risk Management Process the best fit. Its only qualifying specific detail is the naming of recognized cybersecurity frameworks and standards, without firm-unique facts or verifiable incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own cybersecurity risk management activities—testing, assessments, scans, threat intelligence review, and consultation as part of its internal strategy. References to vendors and consultants are generic and incidental, so the main topic is internal process rather than third-party risk.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, monitoring, testing, and incident response processes, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. Although it mentions escalation to senior management and the Board, those references are secondary to the process description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, mitigation, monitoring, training, and incident response processes, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. It names recognized frameworks such as NIST CSF and Capability Maturity Model Integration, which makes it more specific than boilerplate but not firm-specific under the stated rules.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity oversight and risk-monitoring process, including an executive committee and business-unit security roles. It is not board oversight, and the emphasis is on how the program operates rather than on an individual executive’s qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is framed around management—specifically the Chief Information Officer and General Counsel—meeting with the board to review cybersecurity topics. While board interaction is mentioned, the grammatical subject is management, making Management Role the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight: the Board and Audit Committee receive cyber reports, review cyber risk, and are briefed by management. It includes firm-specific facts through the identified CISO/CIO roles and a specific year reference, but not two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, including assessments, controls, training, incident response, and integration with enterprise risk processes. Although third-party risk is mentioned, it is only one component of the broader internal program rather than the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Risk Committee and how information flows to the Board and its committees, making board-level governance the central topic. It includes firm-specific governance structures and a cybersecurity-specific role, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily narrates a real cybersecurity incident, including when it was disclosed, what systems/facilities were affected, response actions taken, and operational recovery timing. Although it also includes financial impact and materiality language, the main thrust is the incident description itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the CISO as a person and role, emphasizing who leads the program and the individual's experience and background. It therefore fits Management Role rather than Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal incident response process and how the plan operates, so it fits Risk Management Process. Although management roles are named, the focus is on the IR Plan and related procedures rather than on the individuals themselves.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main focus is the Audit Committee’s and Board’s oversight of cybersecurity risk, making Board Governance the best fit. Although management roles are mentioned, they are described in service of informing the board rather than as the primary subject.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substance is a materiality assessment stating that prior incidents have not materially affected, and are not likely to materially affect, the company’s operations or financial condition. The brief mention of enterprise risk management and the cross-reference to risk factors are secondary and do not change the primary focus from strategy/materiality.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Board of Directors, including board briefings and the Board’s role in overseeing the annual enterprise risk assessment. Although it names management roles, those details support the governance discussion rather than making management qualifications the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph is principally about how board-level committees receive cybersecurity updates and how incidents are escalated to the Board or a Board committee, making board oversight the main topic. It includes firm-specific governance facts such as cybersecurity-specific roles and a named committee acronym, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity control of encrypting sensitive data, which is part of its risk management process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, products, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CISO's reporting and escalation responsibilities, making the management role the main subject. Although the Board and Audit Committee are mentioned, they are recipients of escalation rather than the primary focus.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily about the qualifications and backgrounds of named management roles responsible for cybersecurity and technology oversight, rather than the company’s cyber processes. It includes multiple verifiable facts such as years of experience, number of companies served, and the 2005 certification date.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily about the qualifications and experience of the CISO and cybersecurity personnel, which makes Management Role the best fit. It includes multiple verifiable facts, including quantified years of experience and named certifications, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment, escalation, monitoring, and response processes. Although it mentions the Board and identifies the CIO, the main focus is the management-level process carried out through the Compliance Committee rather than board oversight or the CIO’s qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses primarily on the company’s cybersecurity practices and assessment process, including safeguards, monitoring, training, and maturity assessments, rather than on the CIO as an individual. It is Firm-Specific because it includes a cybersecurity-specific role (Chief Information Officer), which is a qualifying company-specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, its operational disruption, the exfiltration of information, and subsequent remediation actions. Although it also mentions business impact and future risk, the incident narrative is the central focus.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to risk factors and does not provide any substantive disclosure about governance, management, processes, incidents, or strategy. Pure cross-references with no additional materiality conclusion or cyber detail are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, what happened, the scope of affected information, and response actions taken. It includes multiple specific dates, which makes the disclosure quantified/verifiable rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity incident identification, escalation, and response process. References to the Sr Director of Tech and third-party advisors support that process, but the central topic is the company’s risk and incident management workflow rather than board oversight, management qualifications, or vendor oversight as a standalone topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the Board’s oversight role, describing how it is briefed on cybersecurity posture and incidents and participates in an annual strategy discussion. Although management roles are mentioned, they are described in service of the Board’s governance function.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, what happened (a ransomware attack causing network disruption), and the company's response and recovery actions. Although it also includes a materiality statement, the incident narrative is the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about governance and oversight, culminating in the Board Risk Committee’s responsibility for overseeing cybersecurity risk and the reporting flow up to that committee. It also includes firm-specific governance details such as the CISO role and named risk committees, which makes it more than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to risk factors and does not provide substantive disclosure about governance, management, processes, strategy, or an actual incident. It therefore fits None/Other rather than a substantive cybersecurity disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Risk Committee, including the information it receives on cybersecurity matters, which makes Board Governance the best fit. Although IT Management is mentioned as the reporting party, the central focus is the committee’s governance role rather than management qualifications or operational processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, organizational structure, controls, training, and framework alignment rather than focusing on an individual executive's qualifications. Although the CIO and CISO are named, the emphasis is on how the cybersecurity function operates, so Risk Management Process is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CIO's role, background, and organizational responsibility for cybersecurity, making Management Role the best fit. Although it mentions team activities, the main focus is the individual executive and the team she leads rather than the company's broader cyber processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity oversight and monitoring processes—how management supervises prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation efforts. It does not focus on a specific board body, named management role, third-party oversight program, or an actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for integrating cybersecurity into enterprise risk management and conducting assessments, which fits Risk Management Process. It does not include qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, named firms, or other firm-unique verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity governance, risk, and compliance activities—policies, standards, and controls—so it fits Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, tools, firms, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph includes a materiality conclusion that past cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. Although it mentions internal escalation and disclosure processes, the materiality assessment is the most category-determinative disclosure under the tiebreaker rules.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily about a specific management leader’s responsibilities, reporting relationships, and qualifications, so Management Role is the best fit. It includes firm-specific details about the Enterprise Security Director and multiple verifiable facts, including years of experience and a professional certification.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company evaluates and sets expectations for vendors and service providers, so Third-Party Risk is the best fit. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named firms, dates, tools, committees, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight through a named cybersecurity-related committee structure, including how issues are escalated to a board committee, which makes Board Governance the best fit. It includes firm-specific governance facts such as named committees and cybersecurity-specific roles, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is a generic warning that the company has faced attempted access efforts and may face them again, coupled with a cross-reference to Risk Factors. It does not describe a specific incident, governance structure, management role, or concrete risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about management-level cybersecurity roles, reporting lines, and the CIO's experience, rather than board oversight or broader process detail. It includes firm-specific role identifiers and a quantified experience fact, but not two qualifying hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on potential business and financial impact, including insurance coverage and material adverse effect language, rather than describing governance, management roles, or a specific incident. The cross-reference to Risk Factors is secondary to this materiality and insurance discussion.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal processes for identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and escalating cybersecurity risk within enterprise risk management. References to executive management and the audit committee are secondary and do not make board oversight the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity monitoring and assessment activities, such as security metrics, control assessments, and attack detection, which makes it a risk management process disclosure. It contains no named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, tools, firms, or other firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal incident escalation and response process, including activation of the response team, management notifications, and materiality assessment steps. Although several roles and committees are named, the focus is on how the cybersecurity incident process operates rather than on board oversight or an individual executive's qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CISO as a person—his role, reporting line, tenure, experience, education, and credentials—so it fits Management Role rather than process-focused disclosure. It includes multiple verifiable facts, including a specific year and quantified credential details, supporting Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substantive point is a materiality statement that cybersecurity risks and past threats have not materially affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The brief mention of prior threats and breaches is generic and secondary, and the rest is a cross-reference to Risk Factors.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity incident response capability and notes use of external support as part of that process. The third parties are unnamed and the focus is not vendor oversight, so this fits Risk Management Process rather than Third-Party Risk.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substance is a materiality conclusion that attempted unauthorized access incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The references to attacks and third-party vendors are generic and support the materiality statement rather than describing a specific incident or a concrete risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk review and incident response processes, not the CIO’s qualifications or background. Although the CIO is mentioned, the focus is on how cybersecurity risks are reviewed and managed through internal protocols.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on management responsibility and qualifications: the CAO’s oversight role, the Enterprise Security Director’s role, and the CAO’s experience and prior CIO position. It is not primarily about board oversight or the detailed operation of the cybersecurity process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a materiality assessment that cybersecurity threats or incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business, results, or financial condition. The added cross-reference to Risk Factors does not change the main point from a strategy/materiality disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph is mainly cautionary language stating that no system is fully secure and cross-referring readers to Risk Factors, rather than describing governance, management roles, a risk process, or a specific incident. It contains no substantive cybersecurity-specific facts beyond generic disclaimer language.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity oversight and risk management processes, including how risks are identified, monitored, escalated, and reported. Although it mentions board oversight and management qualifications, those details support the broader description of the company’s process rather than making board governance or management biography the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph is mainly about how the company organizes and carries out its cybersecurity function—team responsibilities, coordination, and review of risk and remediation—rather than primarily about the individual executive. It includes firm-specific organizational details such as the Senior Director of Cybersecurity, the security steering committee, and its cross-functional composition.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes VF's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including detection, response, training, incident response planning, and third-party risk controls. Although it mentions the CISO's experience and reporting line, the main focus is the company's program and processes rather than management personnel themselves.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the company informs and supports its own cybersecurity program through external counsel, forensic firms, vendors, and information-sharing communities, which is part of its internal risk management process. It is not about overseeing vendor risk, but about using outside resources to monitor and assess cyber threats.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on evaluating and monitoring cybersecurity risks posed by vendors and service providers, making third-party oversight the primary topic. It contains no named vendors, frameworks, dates, tools, firms, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including incident response planning and system review activities, rather than board oversight, management qualifications, third-party oversight, or a specific incident. It does not include any named frameworks, roles, dates, tools, firms, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about who holds cybersecurity-related management roles and their qualifications/experience, rather than describing the company’s cyber processes. It includes firm-specific role titles and a quantified experience statement, but not enough hard verifiable facts to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management processes and program activities, even though it mentions management roles. The CTO/CISO reporting structure and dedicated information security team make the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal incident response and escalation processes, including how incidents are managed and integrated with continuity planning. Although it mentions the Audit Committee and Board, those bodies are not the main subject; the focus is the response process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the Information Security Officer and the supporting security team, including responsibilities and reporting structure, which makes Management Role the best fit. It identifies a cybersecurity-specific role and a firm-specific team composition, but provides no hard verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named external firms.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses participation in an external privacy-focused group and broadly mentions building privacy resilience, but it does not describe the company's board oversight, management roles, internal cyber risk processes, third-party risk oversight, incident details, or strategy/materiality impacts. It is therefore best treated as other non-core cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive point is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats and incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The rest is general risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management roles, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment process, including risk register updates and evaluation of threats and safeguards. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, tools, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about cybersecurity reporting and oversight to the Audit and Finance Committee and leadership, making board-level oversight the central theme. Although the CTO is mentioned, the focus is on the governance/reporting structure rather than the CTO’s qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment and audit activities, which fits risk management processes rather than board governance or a management-profile discussion. Although it mentions a VP and the Audit Committee, those references are incidental and do not make board oversight or management qualifications the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business, results, or financial condition. The added cross-reference to Risk Factors does not change that primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity controls, monitoring, vulnerability management, and employee security training processes. Although it mentions the VP of Information Security, the focus is on how the cybersecurity program operates rather than on the executive's qualifications or role background.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk identification, monitoring, testing, and response processes, so it is best classified as Risk Management Process. Although it mentions third-party providers and escalation to management and the Board, those references are secondary to the description of the company’s own operational controls and procedures.


reasoning: The paragraph describes aspects of an actual cybersecurity incident, including possible exfiltration of personal information and response actions through notifications to affected individuals and regulators. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as dates, named firms, named systems, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk identification, assessment, and monitoring activities, which makes Risk Management Process the best fit. It contains only generalized descriptions of security practices and no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, tools, or firms.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program features, including incident response, testing, policies, training, risk assessments, insurance, and vendor procedures, so it is primarily about risk management processes. Although board participation is mentioned, the board is not the main subject of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the identified management role—its experience, reporting line, and responsibilities for escalating and coordinating cybersecurity incidents—rather than on board oversight or general process design. It includes firm-specific facts through the named cybersecurity role and the stated experience level, but not enough qualifying hard verifiable facts to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal escalation and reporting process for cybersecurity incidents, including incident reporting, escalation, and response workflows. Although management roles and the board are mentioned, they are secondary to the discussion of the process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats and any previous incidents have not materially affected the company and are not reasonably likely to do so. The risk factor cross-reference is secondary and does not change the main focus from strategy/materiality disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices and controls, including policies, assessments, incident response planning, ISMS oversight, and training. Although the CFO is mentioned, the substance is about how the cybersecurity program operates rather than the person's qualifications or governance role.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about monitoring and reducing cybersecurity risk related to vendors, service providers, customers, and third-party technology, making third-party exposure the central topic. The brief mention of cybersecurity insurance is ancillary and does not outweigh the vendor-focused risk discussion.


reasoning: Although the paragraph includes a brief incident narrative, its primary thrust is the materiality assessment and discussion of potential business, financial, legal, and reputational impacts. Under the tiebreaker, a brief mention of a past incident combined with a materiality conclusion is best classified as Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cyber risk management process—prevention, detection, mitigation, remediation, strategy, training, and protective resources—rather than on the qualifications of a specific executive or board oversight. Although management roles are mentioned, they serve to describe who supports the process, not as the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management approach, including assessment of its program, with third-party providers mentioned only as one input into that process. The only qualifying specific fact is the named NIST framework, which makes the disclosure sector-adapted rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general internal cybersecurity practices and controls for monitoring and protecting systems and data, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains only broad, reusable statements with no named frameworks, roles, dates, tools, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a real cybersecurity incident, including when it was disclosed and a brief description of what occurred and what data was affected. It is not primarily about general risk management or vendor oversight, even though a third-party vendor was involved.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general incident response and recovery activities, such as containment, remediation, and restoration, rather than a specific cybersecurity event. It is therefore best categorized as internal cybersecurity process disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management process—embedding risk management into business processes and having ERM and IT risk teams evaluate and address cyber risks. Although a CSO is mentioned, the subject is what the process does rather than the qualifications or background of the individual.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on who within management leads and executes the cybersecurity program—especially the CISO’s role, reporting line, qualifications, and responsibilities. Although board oversight is mentioned, it is secondary to the description of management leadership and organizational roles.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about identified management roles—especially the CISO and CIO—their responsibilities, experience, and qualifications, rather than board oversight or general process design. It includes multiple company-specific, quantified facts about those roles, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the CISO-led management structure and reporting lines within the information security function, so Management Role is the best fit. Although the Audit Committee is mentioned, the main subject is management organization rather than board oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s own cybersecurity policies, standards alignment, and certification-based control processes, which fits Risk Management Process. It includes multiple verifiable facts, including specific years and certification/audit details, supporting a Quantified-Verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity preparedness and incident response activities, including response strategies and monitoring of service providers, so it is best categorized as Risk Management Process. Although third-party providers are mentioned, vendor oversight is only one component of the broader internal risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity activities and controls—policy setting, compliance promotion, threat mitigation, risk assessments, and technical safeguards—so it is about process rather than the qualifications or reporting line of a specific executive. It includes a firm-specific fact because the team is identified as being led by the CIO, Security Officer.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on who manages cybersecurity and the CISO’s qualifications, making Management Role the best fit. It includes firm-specific role identification plus verifiable qualification details about the CISO.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected the company, with a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, or specific risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal product cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes, particularly within its E-Systems business, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. It is firm-specific because it includes a unique business context and a certification claim tied to ISO 21434, but it does not clearly contain two qualifying hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity assessment, monitoring, audit, and improvement activities, which fits Risk Management Process. It includes firm-specific details such as the named InfoSec function and the named external evaluator DCMA, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily narrates a real cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, the affected system, response actions, and the stated operational/data impact. It includes two hard verifiable facts—a specific date and a named system/product—so it qualifies as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a materiality assessment that cybersecurity risks and prior threats/breaches have not materially affected the company, with a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe a specific incident or internal cyber process in substantive detail.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal process for identifying and assessing cybersecurity risks as part of its overall risk assessment process, which fits Risk Management Process. It also includes a firm-specific fact by naming the Cybersecurity Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) team.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management activities, including control assessments, policies, training, detection, incident response, and recovery planning. Its only concrete distinguishing details are the named frameworks used for assessment, which supports a Sector-Adapted classification rather than firm-specific disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the CISO’s role, responsibilities, background, and reporting line, so Management Role is the best fit. It also includes firm-specific details and two verifiable facts—a specific year (2013) and a quantified duration (14 years)—which supports Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: Although the paragraph begins with incident response process language, its most distinctive focus is the Director of IT as the leader of the cyber function, including that individual's credentials and experience. That makes Management Role the best fit under the person-versus-function test.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses general state regulatory trends and the company's monitoring of those developments, rather than describing the company's governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, incident details, or strategy impacts. It is generic contextual disclosure rather than a substantive cybersecurity program statement.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity governance process—reviewing a cybersecurity policy for alignment with best practices—rather than focusing on board oversight or the qualifications of a specific executive. It includes firm-specific organizational details about the Information Security team and Legal Department’s involvement.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on a specific management role—the SVP of IT—and that role’s responsibility to brief senior management on cybersecurity matters. It is not primarily about board oversight or a broader internal risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal information security processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risk across its systems and data. It does not focus on board oversight, management personnel, third-party oversight as a standalone topic, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities, especially employee training, simulations, tabletop exercises, and plan evaluation. Although it mentions business strategy, the main focus is on operational cybersecurity processes rather than financial/materiality impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal process for identifying and managing cybersecurity risk through its risk management program. Although it mentions the Board, the focus is on the company's risk-management approach rather than board oversight as the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk identification, assessment, monitoring, and mitigation processes. Although it mentions the CFO and third-party service providers, the focus is on the function’s activities rather than on a management person or vendor oversight as the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight by the Audit Committee and Board, including how they receive reports and engage with management on cybersecurity matters, so Board Governance is the best fit. It is Firm-Specific because it identifies the CIO and SIRT, although the presence of generic Audit Committee language prevents a more tailored classification based on governance details alone.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the management team roles responsible for cybersecurity and their qualifications/experience, making Management Role the best fit. It includes multiple specific management titles and quantified years of experience, which raises specificity to Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Although the paragraph mentions board oversight and management responsibility, its main substance describes the company’s cybersecurity policies and processes, including framework alignment and integration into risk management and incident response. The only qualifying specific details are references to recognized frameworks, which makes the disclosure sector-adapted rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity oversight and information flow processes—how management supervises the program, receives threat intelligence, and updates the board—rather than focusing on board oversight as the main subject or on a specific executive’s qualifications. It includes firm-specific organizational details such as the internal Information Security team and the Disclosure Committee.


reasoning: This is a generic hypothetical statement about potential consequences of a data breach, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, strategy integration, or an actual incident. It contains no substantive cybersecurity program disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily about the management officials responsible for cybersecurity and their qualifications, making Management Role the best fit. It includes firm-specific role titles and an experience qualification, but not two clearly independent hard verifiable facts sufficient for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats could affect the business but have not had material adverse effects to date, which falls under Strategy Integration. The rest is a cross-reference to risk factors and contains no substantive process, governance, or incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's general cybersecurity posture and dependence on IT systems, which fits best under its internal risk management context rather than governance, management roles, or incident disclosure. However, it does not describe any concrete processes, frameworks, roles, or controls, making it highly generic.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main focus is the company’s oversight of vendors and service providers, including assessments and contractual requirements imposed on them, which fits Third-Party Risk. It does not contain qualifying firm-specific facts such as named roles, committees, frameworks, dates, tools, firms, or quantifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk identification and assessment activities, such as monitoring, audits, threat assessments, and incident response exercises. Although IT vendors are mentioned, vendor oversight is not the central topic; the focus is the company's own risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company internally identifies, assesses, and mitigates cybersecurity risk, rather than about board oversight or the qualifications of a specific cybersecurity executive. It includes a firm-specific detail about the internal functional groups involved in cybersecurity risk evaluation.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was detected and the response actions taken, so it fits Incident Disclosure. It includes a specific month and year, which makes it firm-specific, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management program and the standards it uses to identify, assess, and manage cyber risk, which fits Risk Management Process. It is Firm-Specific because it goes beyond generic framework references by asserting company-specific certification and attestation objectives.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about identified management roles, their reporting lines, and the CISO’s qualifications and responsibilities, rather than board oversight or a standalone process description. It includes firm-specific facts such as named cybersecurity leadership roles, a named committee, and a quantified tenure detail, but not two qualifying hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management activities, including risk assessment, security controls, incident response, and employee training. It does not focus on board oversight, management qualifications, third-party risk, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risk management, making board governance the central topic. It contains only generic board oversight language and no qualifying specific facts such as named committees, roles, frameworks, dates, or quantified details.


reasoning: This paragraph is centered on the CISO as a management role, describing the officer's responsibilities and experience rather than the board's oversight or the company's broader risk processes. It includes multiple specific, quantified facts about the CISO's tenure and cybersecurity experience.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment stating that cyber threats have not materially affected the Fund’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, which falls under Strategy Integration. It does not describe an actual incident or the company’s cyber risk management processes in substance.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity incident response and escalation process, including how incidents are assessed and handled. The mention of third-party service providers is only a supporting component of that process, not the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality-oriented statement that cybersecurity is part of overall risk strategy and that the company is not aware of any incident that has materially affected it. It does not describe a specific incident or provide substantive process details, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is about committee-level oversight of cybersecurity matters, with the audit committee as the grammatical subject receiving reports and presentations. It contains no qualifying specific facts because 'audit committee' and 'quarterly' are generic governance features under the annotation rules.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the VP of IT/Information Security Officer’s responsibilities, reporting, and qualifications, making management the primary subject rather than the board or general process description. It also includes multiple verifiable firm-specific facts, including a named cybersecurity role, a named committee, and quantified tenure/experience details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity threats, even though a third party assists with those activities. The vendor is part of the company’s internal risk management process rather than the central subject of standalone vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on how the company integrates cybersecurity into its overall risk management and enterprise risk processes. References to the Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel, and audit committee are incidental and generic, not the main subject of the disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management responsibility and oversight function—assessing and managing cyber risk and supervising consultants—rather than focusing on the qualifications or identity of a specific manager. The mention of external consultants is incidental to the internal process, not a standalone discussion of third-party risk.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's internal cybersecurity risk management structure and the existence of an incident response plan, which makes it chiefly about risk management processes rather than the CIO's personal qualifications or background. It includes a firm-specific cybersecurity role fact through the identification of the Chief Information Officer.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment of cybersecurity risks and past incident expenses, stating they have not materially affected the company and are not reasonably likely to do so. It does not describe governance, management roles, or substantive risk management processes, and the cross-reference to risk factors is ancillary.


reasoning: The paragraph includes a description of an actual past cybersecurity incident, stating that a criminal attack on the company's systems in 2017 resulted in theft of personal information. Although the rest of the paragraph discusses potential consequences of future incidents, the lead sentence makes incident disclosure the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity activities such as testing, monitoring, assessments, and overall risk management practices. Although third-party service providers are mentioned, they are presented as one component of the company's broader cybersecurity risk management process rather than the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal approach to identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risk through use of recognized frameworks, which fits Risk Management Process. It names external standards but provides no firm-unique roles, committees, dates, or other company-specific verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity-related resilience and response processes, including incident response, business continuity, disaster recovery, and testing. It does not focus on board oversight, management personnel, third-party risk, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risk, with the board as the grammatical subject and audit committee oversight mentioned as part of that governance structure. It contains no qualifying specific facts beyond generic board and audit committee references.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Honda's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, reporting, and supervision process rather than board oversight or the background of a particular executive. It includes firm-specific organizational details, including a named committee, a 64-member cyber supervisory function, and named internal divisions.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal escalation and materiality-assessment process after a cyber threat or incident is identified, which fits Risk Management Process. Although it references Board recommendation and disclosure decisions, the main focus is the operational process rather than board oversight or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity-related activities and processes—integrating cyber risk into business processes, incident preparation, process approval, and review of security assessments—rather than identifying specific management roles or qualifications. Although 'management team' is the subject, the disclosure is about the function being performed, not particular individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management activities, including controls, monitoring, training, backups, and disaster recovery. The mention of reviewing SOC 1 Type 2 reports for outsourced systems is part of the broader internal risk process rather than a standalone vendor oversight discussion.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities—designing controls, penetration testing, monitoring, detection, and incident response—even though third parties assist with those functions. Because the third parties are unnamed and no specific frameworks, dates, tools, or firms are identified, the disclosure is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is chiefly about the company’s cybersecurity program and control environment—monitoring, testing, training, controls, third-party report review, and framework use—so it is best classified as Risk Management Process. Although it names management roles, those roles appear as part of describing how the process functions rather than focusing on the individuals themselves.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company vets and oversees third parties with access to data or infrastructure, so Third-Party Risk is the best fit. It includes a firm-specific detail about the internal stakeholders involved in that process, but no dates, named firms, tools, or other hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company. The mention of incidents and the cross-reference to risk factors are secondary and do not describe a specific incident or substantive risk-management process.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity operations, including threat intelligence monitoring, control evaluation, network monitoring, and defensive adjustments, which makes Risk Management Process the best fit. It includes one qualifying specific fact—24/7 monitoring coverage from a managed security service provider—but otherwise consists mostly of general process descriptions.


reasoning: The paragraph is about oversight by a board committee, making Board Governance the best fit. It contains only generic references to the Audit Committee, management reports, and cybersecurity oversight processes, with no qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential business and operational impact of cybersecurity incidents—delays in production, delivery, or order fulfillment—rather than governance, management roles, or specific risk management processes. It is purely hypothetical and contains no company-specific details, dates, roles, frameworks, or quantified facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality-style assessment that prior attacks have not had a material impact and that future disruptions could affect the business. It does not provide a concrete incident narrative with specific event details, dates, or response actions, so it fits Strategy Integration rather than Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal processes and structures for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risk, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. Although it mentions a CISO, the focus is on the overall program and response process rather than the individual’s role or qualifications alone.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's overall cybersecurity risk management approach, program, and integration into risk governance. Although it mentions Audit Committee review, that is secondary and the board committee is not the main subject of the disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality-style statement that cybersecurity threats may materially affect the Trust’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, followed by a cross-reference to risk factors. It does not describe governance, management roles, internal processes, third-party oversight, or an actual incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on who in management has primary responsibility for cybersecurity risk management, with additional detail on that person's participation in the Rapid Response Team. Although it also mentions reporting and oversight, the management role is the main focus rather than board governance or broader process description.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity response process and how it fits into overall risk management, rather than focusing on board oversight, management personnel, or a specific incident. It includes a named internal plan (IRP), which makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, the systems and operations affected, and resulting business disruptions. Because it includes multiple specific time references tied to the incident and its effects, it rises to Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the management group responsible for cybersecurity and the qualifications of the individuals leading it, rather than the underlying risk processes themselves. It includes firm-specific details about a named internal team and quantified experience, but not enough hard verifiable facts to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph’s central substantive disclosure is the materiality statement that no cybersecurity incidents or threats have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business, results, or financial condition. Although it briefly mentions incident reporting to management and the board, the main point is the boilerplate materiality conclusion rather than governance or process details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management activities and administration, including prevention, detection, mitigation, and use of threat intelligence. Although it mentions management and the Audit Committee, it does not focus on a named management role or board committee as the main subject, and the third-party references are only supporting components of the internal process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was discovered, the operational impact (network disruption and affected systems), and response actions taken. Although it also includes materiality and risk language, the incident narrative is the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph's main focus is cybersecurity risk arising from the Fund's use of third parties and how those risks are overseen, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It includes a firm-specific team composition fact, but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk and the reports it receives, making board-level governance the central topic. It includes a firm-specific fact because it identifies Apollo's CSO or CISO as the reporting role.


reasoning: The paragraph mainly describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, including monitoring, safeguards, incident response, training, and third-party risk as components of its overall process. Although board oversight and third-party oversight are mentioned, they are subordinate to the broader description of the company's risk management practices.


reasoning: The paragraph mainly describes the company’s internal cybersecurity and incident response processes—implementing a protection program and managing mitigation, transference, and acceptance of risk—rather than focusing on the qualifications or background of a specific executive. Although a titled role is mentioned, the substance is about the function of the program, not the person.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity practices—monitoring, testing, training, and incident-mitigation processes—with third-party oversight mentioned only as one component of that broader process. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, tools, firms, or uniquely identified roles/committees.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity activities—prevention, detection, monitoring, reviews, simulations, and training—so it is primarily about risk management processes. It does not include any qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, tools, firms, dates, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily focuses on identified management roles—the Information Security Director and CIO—including reporting structure, responsibilities, and experience. Although it mentions incident response procedures, the main thrust is the role and qualifications of management personnel rather than the broader cybersecurity process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and preparedness activities, such as training, policies, incident response, and assessments, which makes Risk Management Process the best fit. It does not focus centrally on vendor oversight, board governance, management roles, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's cybersecurity leadership structure and personnel, centered on the CISO, reporting lines, and team qualifications. Although it mentions cybersecurity activities, the main thrust is who leads and staffs the function rather than detailing a specific risk-management process.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment—stating that known cybersecurity threats, including prior incidents, have not materially affected the company—so it fits Strategy Integration. It does not describe governance, management roles, or an actual incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and incident preparedness measures, including training, policies, and assessments, so it is primarily about risk management processes. References to third-party consultants are incidental to the broader internal program rather than making vendor oversight the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is about the company’s general approach to identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks, which fits Risk Management Process. It does not describe board oversight, management roles, a specific incident, or any concrete company-specific processes or facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board-level oversight, with the Board of Directors and Audit Committee described as overseeing cybersecurity reporting and escalation. Although it mentions an SVP role, the main subject is governance by the board and its committee rather than the qualifications or identity of a cybersecurity-specific management role.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity practices and program activities, such as vulnerability management, training, and incident readiness. Although it mentions vendors, third-party oversight is only one component of the broader internal risk program, so Risk Management Process is the best fit.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including what happened, the affected third-party platform, the potentially impacted customer data, remediation steps, customer notification, and operational impact. Because it centers on the incident narrative and response actions rather than general vendor oversight or materiality alone, Incident Disclosure is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is principally about the Board of Directors and its committee overseeing cybersecurity, so Board Governance is the best fit. It contains only generic board/audit committee oversight language and routine briefing cadence, with no qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk identification and management processes over its systems and data, making Risk Management Process the best fit. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, tools, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes—implementation of a protection program, real-time monitoring, and incident response activities—rather than focusing on board oversight or an individual's qualifications. Although the Board is mentioned, it is only as a recipient of reports, not the main subject.