content_category: Risk Management Process

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management framework, specifically naming the 'Enterprise Risk Management Program' and 'Enterprise Risk Assessment' as unique internal processes. It is level 3 because it details the specific organizational structure (12 categories, quarterly review cadence) unique to this company's risk management approach.

provider: google


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential business and financial impact of cyber threats and includes a materiality statement regarding the company's current exposure, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It is level 1 because it uses generic, conditional language ('may not be sufficiently protected', 'could have adverse consequences') without naming specific systems, frameworks, or unique organizational details.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities and reporting cadence. It is level 3 because it names specific internal entities like the 'Audit Committee', 'Enterprise Risk Management Committee', 'Chief Information Officer', and 'VP Infrastructure'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management structure by naming specific departments (Legal, Compliance, and Finance) involved in the process, which is a firm-specific organizational detail.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general approach to cybersecurity risk management and integration with enterprise risk management. It lacks any specific frameworks, named roles, or unique company identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination (March 10, 2024) and the company's immediate response actions, which qualifies as firm-specific incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date (April 24, 2024), the affected system (Dropbox Sign production environment), and specific details about the nature of the unauthorized access, meeting the criteria for level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination (March 10, 2024) and the nature of the event (unauthorized access to the information environment), meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure and level 4 specificity.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph explicitly identifies the 'Chief Technology Officer' and their specific responsibilities and reporting lines to the 'General Counsel', which constitutes firm-specific organizational detail.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing cybersecurity incident, including the timeline (late November 2023) and specific impacts (access to source code repositories and internal systems), which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It is level 3 because it references specific internal systems and a specific timeframe, but lacks the two verifiable facts required for level 4 (e.g., no specific dollar amounts or named third-party firms).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the exact date of detection (May 6, 2024) and the specific operational impacts (disruptions to financial and operating reporting systems), meeting the criteria for a high-specificity incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a boilerplate materiality assessment regarding cybersecurity threats and directs the reader to the Risk Factors section, which is a standard strategic disclosure rather than a description of specific processes or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the exact date of discovery (November 25, 2024) and the nature of the event (unauthorized access and encryption of IT systems), meeting the criteria for both Incident Disclosure and high specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director) and provides quantified, verifiable experience metrics (35 and 25 years) for those individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board's oversight structure and the delegation of cybersecurity risk responsibilities to the audit committee. It uses generic terminology applicable to any company, lacking specific names or unique organizational details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management process, specifically identifying the involvement of the CISO and CIO and the biannual/annual review cadences, which are firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident and the company's response actions, including a specific date (December 20, 2023) when systems were isolated, which qualifies as firm-specific information.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to an ongoing incident (cooperating with law enforcement) and includes a materiality statement regarding that specific incident. The language regarding materiality is standard boilerplate and does not contain specific, verifiable facts about the incident's nature or scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the integration of cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, which is a core risk management process. It is level 1 because it uses generic, boilerplate language without naming specific frameworks, departments, or unique organizational structures.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the status and potential impact of an ongoing cybersecurity incident, which is the primary purpose of an Incident Disclosure. The language is standard boilerplate regarding the uncertainty of impact, lacking specific details about the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes the board's oversight role and specifies a reporting cadence ('at least an annual basis') involving the 'audit committee,' which is a firm-specific governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment methodology for vendors, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is level 1 because it uses generic language ('risk-based approach', 'criticality and size') without naming specific frameworks, standards, or unique internal programs.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 1, 2024, and details the company's specific response actions, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the oversight relationship between the Committee and the Board regarding cybersecurity, which is a core governance function. It is level 1 because it uses generic terms like 'the Committee' and 'management' without naming specific committees or roles, and 'periodic' without a defined cadence.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion regarding the financial impact of an incident, which falls under Strategy Integration per the provided rules. It uses standard boilerplate language without specific details, warranting a specificity level of 1.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: This paragraph is a standard disclaimer and cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, containing no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial strategy of seeking insurance reimbursement for incident-related costs, rather than describing the incident itself. It is level 2 because it mentions 'cybersecurity insurers' as a specific financial mechanism, but lacks firm-specific details like named insurance carriers or specific policy amounts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the status of an ongoing investigation into a cybersecurity incident, which is the core purpose of an Item 1.05 disclosure. It lacks any specific details such as dates, named systems, or specific forensic firms, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's ongoing response to an incident, including system restoration and engagement with external parties. It is classified as level 1 because it uses generic language ('leading experts', 'certain regulatory authorities') without naming specific firms, agencies, or systems.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal risk management processes, including the use of the CIS framework, annual assessments, and specific internal oversight structures like the 'Technology Committee' and 'Internal Audit team', which are firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response and business continuity processes, including the specific role of the 'Chief Security Officer' and named programs like the 'Incident Response Program', which makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion regarding an incident, which falls under Strategy Integration per the provided rules. It uses standard boilerplate language without any specific details about the incident or the company's financial metrics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including threat assessment, training, and tool usage. It reaches level 3 specificity by naming specific oversight bodies like the 'Audit Committee' and referencing specific compliance requirements like 'SOC-1 or SOC-2' for named business functions (banking, payroll, stock-plan administration).


reasoning: The paragraph describes general risk management activities like monitoring and infrastructure development to mitigate threats, but uses entirely generic language without naming specific frameworks, roles, or unique internal systems.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly names specific internal roles (CFO, CLO, VP, Corporate Controller, Sr. Director of IT) and a specific committee (Audit Committee) that constitute the company's unique management structure for cybersecurity oversight.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard legal disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements and does not contain substantive cybersecurity disclosure content.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of the materiality determination (July 25, 2024), the nature of the incident (unauthorized access and exfiltration), and specific operational impacts (shutting down systems, disruption to financial and operating reporting systems), meeting the criteria for both Incident Disclosure and high specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident (website defacement), provides a precise date (August 25, 2025), names the affected asset (wytecintl.com), and lists specific consequences (cancellation of a seminar on September 2, 2025), meeting the criteria for level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details specific facts about an ongoing incident, including the number of accounts accessed (33 million), the number of accounts with data saved (3,000), and the specific financial value of the compensation program (1.685 trillion won / $1.2 billion), meeting the criteria for level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of the extortion attempt (May 11, 2025), the nature of the threat, the method of unauthorized access, and the company's specific response actions, meeting the criteria for both Incident Disclosure and high specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses potential cyber risks and the company's limited ability to protect against them, focusing on risk exposure rather than an actual incident or governance details.

provider: openai


reasoning: Paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting processes integrated into its ERM, which is the primary purpose.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal team and processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity threats, which is the core of risk management. It mentions a multi‑stakeholder team with specific internal departments and a third‑party IT administrator, providing firm‑specific details but no quantified data, placing it at specificity level 3.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event (unauthorized third‑party access) with a date (March 10, 2024) and details of response, making it an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Audit Committee of the Board overseeing cybersecurity risk and receiving reports, making board oversight the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including methodology and integration with enterprise risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Chief Technology Officer’s responsibilities and reporting lines, making management role the dominant focus.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity event (unauthorized third‑party access detected on May 6, 2024) and details the response, which is the hallmark of Incident Disclosure. It provides a specific date and identifies affected systems (business applications, financial and operating reporting systems), giving two verifiable facts, thus qualifying as level 4 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes how cybersecurity risk management is integrated into overall risk processes, reviews, and mitigation plans, which is the primary focus of risk management. It mentions the company's CISO and CIO and review cadences, making it firm‑specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event that occurred on March 10, 2024, detailing unauthorized access, response actions, and operational impact, which is the hallmark of an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies the CIO and Information Security Director, their experience, and their role leading the cybersecurity program, making management role the dominant focus; it mentions firm‑specific titles and experience years, qualifying it as firm‑specific (level 3).


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity event, detailing when (late November 2023) the threat actor accessed employee email accounts and is attempting to access source code repositories, which is characteristic of Incident Disclosure. It provides a specific date and mentions concrete systems (employee email accounts, source code repositories), giving two verifiable facts, thus qualifying as specificity level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph details a specific cybersecurity event (date November 25, 2024, illegal access and encryption of data) and the company’s response, which is the primary purpose.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity event (unauthorized occurrences on May 1, 2024) and the company’s response actions, making it Incident Disclosure. It provides a specific date and concrete actions (shutting down IT systems, engaging external experts), which are two verifiable facts, qualifying it as level 4 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a real event with date April 24, 2024 and named product Dropbox Sign, providing specific details about accessed data, thus Incident Disclosure and level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a generic forward-looking disclaimer about potential cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, process, governance, or strategy; it is a boilerplate risk statement.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board's overall oversight and the audit committee's role in reviewing cybersecurity risk, making board oversight the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality assessment of an ongoing incident without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no company‑specific facts, frameworks, or dates, so it is level 1 specificity.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on evaluating third‑party vendors using a risk‑based approach, making third‑party oversight the primary subject.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how cybersecurity risk management is integrated into the enterprise risk management program, focusing on methodology and governance processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Committee receiving reports and reporting to the full Board, making the board/committee oversight the primary purpose.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion about the incident’s financial impact without describing the incident itself, which fits Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate language and no firm‑specific details, so it is specificity level 1.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality assessment (“not had a material impact… not reasonably likely to materially impact…”) without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no company‑specific details, placing it at specificity level 1.


reasoning: The paragraph is a generic disclaimer referring to risk factors and does not disclose any specific governance, management, risk process, third‑party, incident, or strategy details.


reasoning: The paragraph states that the board of directors is responsible for oversight and receives updates, making board oversight the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the current forensic analysis of a cybersecurity incident, indicating an ongoing investigation, which is characteristic of Incident Disclosure. It contains only generic language with no company‑specific names, dates, or quantifiable details, fitting specificity level 1.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a cybersecurity incident—restoring systems, retaining experts, and working with law enforcement—indicating an actual event.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's cybersecurity risk management strategy, frameworks (CIS Controls), regular risk assessments, infrastructure, personnel, and training – all describing internal processes.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal risk assessment, monitoring, training, and response processes, which is a description of risk management. It references industry standards (NIST, ISO) but does not name any firm‑specific roles, committees, or dates, placing it at the sector‑adapted level.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event (unauthorized activity), the detection, containment steps, date of action, and response actions, which is characteristic of an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details the internal Risk Management Team (CFO, CLO, VP, etc.) and its reporting to the Audit Committee, making the management role the primary focus; it names specific company roles, qualifying it as firm‑specific (level 3).


reasoning: The paragraph discusses seeking reimbursement from cyber insurance and notes uncertainty about timing/amount, focusing on financial/strategic implications rather than describing the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward‑looking safe‑harbor disclaimer with no substantive cyber‑risk disclosure; it merely states that statements are forward‑looking and may differ.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the company's ongoing monitoring, prevention, and mitigation of cyber threats and the potential impacts, without mentioning a specific incident, board, or management role.


reasoning: Paragraph details the actual cybersecurity incident, including dates of updates, number of accounts accessed, data saved, and a compensation program, which makes it an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific event (defacement of the website on August 25, 202D) with details of actions taken, impact, and ongoing response, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality assessment of the incident’s financial impact without describing the incident itself, making strategy/financial impact the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the company evaluates incidents, escalation procedures, and outlines its Incident Response and Business Continuity programs, which are internal processes for managing cyber risk.


reasoning: The paragraph details a specific event (email threat, data access, termination, law‑enforcement cooperation) with a date and actions taken, which is the hallmark of an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity event, detailing the unauthorized third‑party access, exfiltration, system shutdowns, operational disruption, and ongoing remediation—clearly an incident description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal risk management processes, including a multi-stakeholder team with representatives from specific departments (Legal and Compliance, Finance, third-party IT administrator) and methods like automated monitoring, scans, and third-party assessments, making Risk Management Process the dominant category as third-parties are components of the company's processes. Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific team composition naming unique departments, but lacks two+ verifiable facts like dates or quantities for level 4.

provider: x-ai


reasoning: Paragraph details the company's ERM and ERA programs, including 12 risk categories (with Cybersecurity as one), annual assessments, quarterly monitoring, and reporting, aligning with Risk Management Process (risk assessment, ERM integration). Named programs (ERM, ERA), specific count (12 categories), and cadences (annual, quarterly) provide two+ verifiable facts for level 4.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including ERM integration and steps like identifying assets, threat sources, likelihood/impact, and controls, which matches Risk Management Process; third-party threats are mentioned only as one component, not centrally. 'Material Risks & Integrated Overall Risk Management' appears to be a named firm-specific program or team developing these processes, qualifying as level 3 firm-specific, though no frameworks or quantifiable facts are named.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, including receiving quarterly reports from the ERM Committee and periodic reports from the CIO or VP Infrastructure, aligning with Board Governance (Item 106(c)(1)). It includes multiple firm-specific verifiable facts: named committees (Audit Committee, ERM Committee), named roles (CIO, VP Infrastructure), and specific cadences (quarterly, periodic, annual), qualifying for level 4 specificity.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily assesses potential material impacts on business strategy, operations, and financial condition, concluding that 'risks from cybersecurity threats have, to date, not materially affected us, our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition'; hypothetical risks and lack of investments are secondary to this materiality statement. Entirely generic boilerplate with conditional language ('could lead to', 'may not be', 'possible') and no named frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable facts.


reasoning: Paragraph details an actual incident with specific date ('On April 24, 2024'), named system ('Dropbox Sign production environment'), scope of data accessed ('emails and usernames... phone numbers, hashed passwords... API keys, OAuth tokens'), and remediation actions ('activated our cybersecurity incident response process'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple verifiable facts (date + named product + specific data types not accessed) exceed level 4 threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with timeline ('On May 6, 2024'), nature ('unauthorized third party access to portions of its IT systems'), scope/impact ('disruptions... to financial and operating reporting systems'), and remediation ('activated its cyber incident procedure... external cybersecurity experts'), making it dominant Incident Disclosure. Specificity level 4 due to two verifiable facts: precise date (May 6, 2024) and named impacted systems ('financial and operating reporting systems').


reasoning: Paragraph details actual incident with timeline ('late November 2023'), scope ('very small percentage of employee email accounts including members of our senior leadership team and employees in our cybersecurity, legal'), and further access ('source code repositories and internal systems'), fitting Incident Disclosure as primary narrative of events. Specificity level 4 due to multiple verifiable facts: specific date range, named employee functions affected, and targeted systems like source code repositories.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual incident with specific date ('March 10, 2024'), unauthorized access to 'portions of its information environment', response actions (incident protocols, containment), impact (business disruption but operations continued), and ongoing investigation with experts and law enforcement—primary purpose is incident narrative per 8-K Item 1.05. Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific date and event details, but lacks second verifiable fact like named systems or quantified impact for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies the Chief Technology Officer by name and role, details their qualifications ('over 15 years of experience'), responsibilities ('establishment and maintenance of our cybersecurity risk management processes'), and reporting lines ('provides reports to and meets periodically with our General Counsel'), making 'Management Role' the dominant category. It is firm-specific due to named roles ('Chief Technology Officer', 'General Counsel') unique to Doximity, but lacks two or more independently verifiable facts like dates or metrics for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes board oversight of cybersecurity risks and delegation to the 'audit committee' for review and reporting, directly matching Board Governance (Item 106(c)(1)); 'audit committee' is a named firm-specific committee, qualifying as level 3 firm-specific without additional verifiable facts for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph is a negative disclosure ('We have not identified risks from known cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any prior cybersecurity incidents, that have materially affected us') followed only by a cross-reference to Item 1A Risk Factors, matching the rule for None/Other with no substantive cybersecurity content.


reasoning: Paragraph describes integration of cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, biannual reviews involving CISO/CIO and business segments, mitigation plans, and annual board review, making Risk Management Process dominant. Names firm-specific roles (CISO, CIO) and review cadences (biannual, annual), qualifying as level 3 firm-specific without quantified metrics or dates for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual past cybersecurity incident with timing ('on March 10, 2024'), nature ('third party gained unauthorized access to portions of our information environment'), response ('initiated incident response protocols, containment measures'), impact ('disruption to a portion of the Company’s business' but 'operations have continued...in all material respects'), and remediation ('affected information environment is remediated' as of filing date), making Incident Disclosure the dominant category. Specificity level 4 due to two+ verifiable facts: exact incident date (March 10, 2024) and remediation status tied to filing date (April 1, 2024).


reasoning: Paragraph identifies specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director) and team (Cybersecurity Team) with their responsibilities and qualifications (35+ and 25+ years experience), fitting Management Role as primary focus on leadership structure and expertise. Named roles and internal team are firm-specific (level 3), but no two independently verifiable facts like dates, amounts, or named external entities for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual past cybersecurity incident with specific timing ('on November 25, 2024'), nature ('threat actor illegally accessed... and encrypted some of its data files'), and response actions ('internal investigation, engaging external cybersecurity specialists'), making Incident Disclosure the dominant category. Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific date and incident details unique to this company, but lacks two independently verifiable facts like named systems/products or quantified impacts for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident including detection of unauthorized activity, containment/remediation steps, specific date 'On December 20, 2023' for isolating systems, retention of experts, and notifications to law enforcement/regulators, making Incident Disclosure the dominant category. Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific date as a unique verifiable fact, but lacks two+ facts like named systems or quantifications for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the status of an actual ongoing cybersecurity incident, including unknown scope/nature/impact, material effects on business operations, and uncertainty on financial impacts, aligning with Incident Disclosure per 8-K Item 1.05 rules. It uses generic boilerplate phrases like 'the incident is ongoing,' 'full scope, nature and impact... not yet known,' and standard materiality language with no firm-specific facts, dates, named systems, or quantifiable details, justifying level 1 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual incident with specific detection date ('May 1, 2024'), unauthorized access by a third party to 'portions of the Company’s IT systems', and detailed response actions (investigation with experts, incident response plan activation, system shutdown, law enforcement notification), making Incident Disclosure the dominant category. Specificity is level 3 due to one firm-specific verifiable fact (exact date) but lacks a second (no named systems/products or quantified details).


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk management procedures integrated into enterprise risk management programs with shared methodologies, reporting channels, and governance processes, directly matching 'Risk Management Process' (ERM integration). It is entirely generic boilerplate with no named frameworks, roles, committees, dates, or firm-specific details, fitting level 1.


reasoning: Paragraph consists of a forward-looking disclaimer using hypothetical language ('we may not be successful... could have a material adverse effect') and a cross-reference to Item 1A Risk Factors, with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure content, fitting None/Other per rules for disclaimers and cross-references.


reasoning: The paragraph describes 'The Committee' receiving 'periodic reports from management on our cybersecurity risks' and updates on incidents, and reporting to the full Board, which directly matches Board Governance criteria for committee oversight and briefing cadence; generic terms like 'The Committee', 'management', and 'periodic' with no named roles, committees, or firm-specific details make it level 1 boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company's risk-based evaluation of third-party vendors based on criticality and size, with reviews by external partners, making vendor/supplier oversight the dominant topic per category rules. It uses generic terms like 'risk-based approach' and 'external partners' with no named frameworks, roles, dates, or firm-specific facts, fitting level 1 boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes board's oversight role and annual updates from 'our audit committee' and 'executive leadership team', directly matching Board Governance criteria with named committee as firm-specific element for level 3.


reasoning: Standalone materiality conclusion ('the incident is not reasonably likely to materially impact the Company’s financial condition or results of operations') with no incident narrative describes a financial/strategic assessment, fitting Strategy Integration per rules. Generic boilerplate language with no firm-specific facts, named entities, or quantifiable details qualifies as level 1.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion stating 'the Incident is not reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or its current or future business or results of operations,' with no incident narrative, fitting Strategy Integration per rules for boilerplate financial assessments. It is generic boilerplate applicable to any company, with no frameworks, named roles, dates, or unique facts, confirming level 1.


reasoning: Paragraph describes post-incident response actions (notified law enforcement, cooperating, assessing notifications based on investigation) and impact (no material impact on operations or financials), fitting Incident Disclosure including impact and remediation elements, though lacking nature/scope; materiality focus creates some ambiguity with Strategy Integration but response actions make Incident dominant. No named entities, dates, frameworks, or firm-specific facts—pure boilerplate language applicable to any company.


reasoning: Paragraph describes ongoing remediation actions ('restore those systems', 'retained leading experts', 'working with law enforcement', 'notified certain regulatory authorities') for an actual incident, fitting Incident Disclosure for 8-K Item 1.05; no financial/strategic focus. Specificity is level 1 as it uses generic terms ('leading experts', 'certain regulatory authorities') with no named entities, dates, frameworks, or firm-unique facts, applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph details the ongoing forensic analysis of 'the incident' to assess its nature, scope, and impact, with no conclusive evidence identified, directly matching Incident Disclosure for an 8-K Item 1.05. It uses generic terms like 'forensic analysis' and 'investigation remains ongoing' without any firm-specific facts, dates, named entities, or quantifiable details, confirming level 1 generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on cyber insurance reimbursement for incident costs, a financial/strategic consequence (insurance claims, unknown timing/amount), not incident narrative itself. Generic boilerplate language ('seeking reimbursement... timing and amount... not known') with no frameworks, dates, named entities, or quantifiable facts unique to VF.


reasoning: Paragraph details company's incident evaluation by the 'Chief Security Officer, or CSO', escalation procedures, 'Incident Response Program' with training/testing, and 'Business Continuity Plan' including for third-party vendors, which describes risk management processes; firm-specific due to named role 'CSO', named programs, and company reference 'S&T'.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity risk management strategy, including adoption of CIS Controls Framework, annual assessments reviewed by Internal Audit team and Technology Committee, regular risk assessments integrated with ERM, infrastructure details, dedicated personnel with insourcing, and training programs—core elements of Risk Management Process. It includes firm-specific elements like 'Technology Committee of our Board,' 'Internal Audit team,' and 'significant investments in technology insourcing,' qualifying for level 3, but lacks quantified facts like amounts or dates for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes general monitoring and development of IT networks to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber risks like malware, viruses, ransomware, and phishing, fitting Risk Management Process; all language is hypothetical/conditional with no actual incidents or strategy focus. No frameworks, named roles, committees, dates, or unique firm facts, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement safe harbor disclaimer referencing an unspecified 'Incident' and cross-referencing other filings, with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure content, fitting 'None/Other'. It uses generic boilerplate language applicable to any company, with no named entities, frameworks, or verifiable facts, warranting specificity level 1.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes (threat assessment, layered security, training with quarterly phishing tests, NIST/ISO standards, annual penetration testing, third-party risk assessments), with third-party elements as components rather than central focus. It includes firm-specific details like 'Audit Committee and Board' reporting, quarterly phishing tests, annual external penetration testing and auditor reviews, and SOC-1/2 compliance for specific providers (banking, payroll, stock-plan), qualifying as level 3 but lacking two quantified facts like dollars or named firms for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph details an actual incident including specific date ('On July 25, 2024'), nature ('third party’s unauthorized access... exfiltration of certain files'), scope ('internal information systems... sensitive personal information... financial and operating reporting systems'), impacts ('material impact... disruption to business operations'), and remediation ('shutting down certain systems... substantially restored'), making it dominant Incident Disclosure. Multiple verifiable facts (date, specific systems affected, actions taken) exceed level 4 threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph details actual incident updates including specific dates (Dec 24/28, 2025; Jan 15, 2026), scope (33 million accounts accessed, 3,000 with saved data), perpetrator identification, remediation (data deleted), and compensation ($1.2B vouchers), making it dominant Incident Disclosure; multiple verifiable facts (dates, quantities, named subsidiary Coupang Corp.) confirm level 4 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident including timeline ('On August 25, 2025'), nature/scope ('bad actor published a defaced website at... wytecintl.com'), response actions ('restored... from back-ups', 'took the website down'), and impacts ('cancel a seminar scheduled for September 2, 2025', 'financial losses... significant'), making Incident Disclosure the dominant category per SEC 8-K Item 1.05 basis. Multiple verifiable facts (two dates, named domain, named agencies like FBI) exceed level 4 threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph primarily describes the firm's internal 'Risk Management Team' comprising specific named roles (CFO, CLO, VP Corporate Controller, Sr. Director SEC Reporting, Sr. Director of IT), their monitoring activities, quarterly meetings, and reporting/briefings to the Audit Committee, making Management Role the dominant category despite board oversight mentions. Multiple verifiable facts including named roles, team composition, quarterly cadence, and annual minimum briefings elevate specificity to level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph details an actual incident with specific timeline ('On May 11, 2025'), scope ('information about certain Coinbase customer accounts... internal Coinbase documentation'), method ('paying multiple contractors or employees... outside the United States'), detection ('Company’s security monitoring in the previous months'), and remediation ('terminated the personnel... heightened fraud-monitoring... cooperating with law enforcement'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple verifiable facts including exact date, named subsidiary (Coinbase, Inc.), data types, and actions confirm level 4 specificity.