content_category: Risk Management Process

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal approach to identifying and managing cybersecurity risks and integrating them into their enterprise risk management system, which fits the definition of Risk Management Process.

provider: google


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential business and financial impact of cybersecurity threats and concludes with a standalone materiality statement ('risks from cybersecurity threats have, to date, not materially affected us'), which aligns with the Strategy Integration category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal methodology for integrating cybersecurity into their broader Enterprise Risk Management framework, which is a core component of risk management processes.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities and reporting lines, making Board Governance the primary category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cross-functional team and the specific methods (monitoring, scans, third-party assessments) used to manage cybersecurity risks, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discloses a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on a defined date, which is the primary purpose of an Item 1.05 8-K filing.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access) and the company's immediate response, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific, ongoing cybersecurity incident involving a nation-state actor, which is the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of discovery and the affected system, which fits the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination and the company's response, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities and qualifications of the Chief Technology Officer, making 'Management Role' the most appropriate category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director) and their qualifications, which aligns with the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding cybersecurity risks and incidents, which falls under Strategy Integration, and includes a cross-reference to Risk Factors, which is typical for this category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of discovery and the nature of the unauthorized access, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the ongoing status and potential impact of a cybersecurity incident, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, dates, or metrics, making it generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, the company's response actions, and provides a concrete date for when systems were isolated, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes and the specific management roles involved in those reviews, fitting the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board's oversight structure and the specific delegation of cybersecurity risk management responsibilities to the audit committee.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access) and the company's response, which is the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how cybersecurity risk management is integrated into the company's broader enterprise risk management framework, which is a core component of internal risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discusses the board of directors' role in cybersecurity oversight and their interaction with the audit committee, placing it squarely in Board Governance.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on the oversight activities of 'The Committee' and its reporting relationship to the 'full Board', which places it squarely in Board Governance. No specific committee names, roles, or verifiable facts are provided, resulting in a generic specificity level.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management process for evaluating vendors; while it mentions third-party vendors, the focus is on the company's own internal methodology rather than specific vendor oversight standards or contractual requirements.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Strategy Integration according to the provided guidelines.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to an incident and provides a materiality assessment, which is the primary focus of an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the ongoing status of an incident investigation, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure, but contains no specific facts or details about the event.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph consists entirely of a disclaimer regarding potential cybersecurity risks and a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, containing no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management strategy, including framework adoption (CIS Controls) and internal oversight processes, which fits the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's financial strategy regarding insurance reimbursement for a cyber incident, rather than describing the incident itself or internal governance processes.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including threat assessment, training, and third-party oversight, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for incident response, business continuity, and risk evaluation, making it a clear example of Risk Management Process disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding a cybersecurity incident, which is explicitly categorized as Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's ongoing response to a cybersecurity incident, fitting the 'Incident Disclosure' category. It contains no specific, verifiable details about the incident or the response team, making it generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general reliance on IT, the nature of threats they face, and their general commitment to monitoring and security, which falls under the umbrella of risk management processes, albeit in a very generic, boilerplate manner.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly defines the composition of the internal management team responsible for cybersecurity and their reporting lines to the Audit Committee, making 'Management Role' the primary focus.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination and the nature of the event (unauthorized access and exfiltration), which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of occurrence, the affected system, the response actions taken, and the resulting operational impact.


reasoning: The paragraph details the ongoing investigation, scope, and financial remediation of a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting the Incident Disclosure category perfectly.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of the threat actor's communication, the nature of the breach, and the company's response, fitting the Incident Disclosure category perfectly.


category_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph is general risk/hypothetical cybersecurity language and does not describe specific internal processes, governance, a named role, or an incident. The closest category would be risk-related content, but it is largely generic boilerplate with no company-specific verifiable details.

provider: openai


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph describes Emergent BioSolutions’ internal cybersecurity program integration with its Enterprise Risk Management Program, including how risks are assessed, accepted/reduced, monitored, and reported (including quarterly reporting). It is therefore best categorized as a risk management process rather than board governance, third-party risk, or incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal multi-stakeholder process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity threats (monitoring, scanning, reviews, periodic third-party assessments) and ongoing investment in its IT department. Although third parties are mentioned, they support the company’s internal risk management process rather than being the central focus as a standalone third-party risk program.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Audit Committee’s governance responsibilities and its reporting/oversight cadence and scope for cybersecurity risk, ERM, and incident/remediation reporting.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management processes (assessing, identifying, managing risks; integrating with enterprise risk management; identifying assets, threat sources, likelihood/impact, and controls). Although third-party service providers are mentioned, they are one input to the internal process rather than the central focus.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access), the date detected, the response actions taken (incident procedure, external experts, law enforcement), and resulting business disruption and affected systems.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (third-party unauthorized access), when it was determined, and the company’s actions/impacts (containment disruption, continued operations, ongoing investigation, and notification).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real incident (unauthorized access), including what was accessed, scope, and current findings, which is central to the disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on named management roles (Chief Technology Officer and General Counsel) and their responsibilities/reporting lines for cybersecurity risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph updates an actual cybersecurity incident (nation-state actor access/exfiltration and continued attempts at unauthorized access) and describes ongoing investigations and potential further access.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including timing (March 10, 2024), unauthorized access by a third party, containment/disruption, and remediation status as of the filing date.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Howmet’s internal integration of cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, including review frequency and who participates, rather than a governance description by the Board as the primary subject or an incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality/disclosure conclusion about whether cybersecurity threats have materially affected the company, and it includes a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section rather than describing an incident or internal process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board and audit committee oversight/briefing of cybersecurity risk management, making it board governance rather than management or process details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses an ongoing cybersecurity incident, including uncertainty about its scope/impact and assertions about potential material business impact, which squarely fits incident disclosure. It contains no checkable named entities, dates, systems, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (illegal access and encryption) with a concrete awareness date and summarizes immediate containment/response actions, which is characteristic of incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily identifies the company’s specific cybersecurity leadership roles (CIO and Information Security Director) and the Cybersecurity Team, along with their experience levels. Although it references cybersecurity program responsibilities, the dominant focus is the management roles and qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity event, including detection date, what was detected, and immediate response actions taken (containment/remediation, external experts, incident response plan, shutdowns, and notification).


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity event (unauthorized activity) and the Company’s response actions, including a specific containment step taken on December 20, 2023.


reasoning: This paragraph contains general incident-related statements and legal/regulatory process language without describing concrete incident facts (e.g., what happened, dates, scope). It functions as boilerplate about notification and materiality determinations rather than substantive disclosure of the incident.


reasoning: The paragraph’s grammatical subject is the board of directors and it describes board-level oversight and reporting from the audit committee and executive leadership, which fits board governance.


category_confidence: medium

specificity_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management process for vendor evaluation, including how it is risk-based; vendor oversight is mentioned only as part of the internal process rather than as the central topic.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic disclaimer and directs readers to another section for cybersecurity risk discussion, without describing the company’s own cyber processes or any incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on a named governance body (“the Committee”) receiving cybersecurity risk reports, receiving incident updates, and reporting its activities to the full Board, which is board/committee oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes that cybersecurity operating procedures are integrated into the company’s enterprise risk management program, but it does not provide substantive details (e.g., specific processes, roles, frameworks, systems, or metrics).


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality determination about whether the incident could materially affect financial condition or results of operations, with no operational/process detail or incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses reimbursement/insurance recovery related to the cyber incident (timing/amount unknown), which is presented as a business/financial impact and insurance mechanism rather than governance, internal controls, or incident narrative details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing cybersecurity incident response/investigation, including forensic analysis and absence of conclusive evidence, which is characteristic of incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion about the incident’s financial/business impact, which fits Strategy Integration rather than risk-process or incident narrative.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an ongoing disruption and response activities (restoring systems, inability to estimate impact, engaging experts, coordinating with law enforcement and regulators), which is incident-related disclosure rather than a general risk process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general cyber risk and the company’s ongoing monitoring and efforts to prevent/detect/mitigate unauthorized access, malware, phishing, and breaches as part of its internal risk management posture. It does not describe an actual incident or board/management identification, and it is largely generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Wendy’s own cybersecurity risk management strategy and its components (framework-based controls, risk assessments/ERM integration, infrastructure, dedicated teams, and training), which is characteristic of internal risk management processes rather than an incident or third-party oversight.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statements and disclaimer section under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, with no description of the underlying cybersecurity event beyond general references to an “Incident.”


reasoning: The paragraph describes S&T BANCORP’s internal incident evaluation, escalation, and incident response/business continuity planning processes, including how the CSO evaluates criticality and how programs are structured. Although it mentions third-party managed systems, the central focus is on the company’s own incident response and continuity process rather than vendor cybersecurity oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Black Stone Minerals’ internal cybersecurity risk-management processes (threat assessment, layered security, training, tools/standards, monitoring, and penetration testing). While it mentions third parties, the central topic is the company’s own process to assess, identify, and manage cybersecurity risks.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (defaced website), actions taken (restoration attempts and taking the site down), impacts (seminar cancellation), and law-enforcement reporting, which are characteristic of incident disclosures.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access and exfiltration), its material impact determination, mitigation actions taken, operational disruption, restoration status, and intended notifications—core incident-disclosure content.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates an actual cybersecurity incident update (perpetrator identified, devices turned over, data accessed/saved/deleted) and includes specific financial/compensation impacts (voucher amounts and accounting treatment), making incident disclosure the dominant topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific real-world cybersecurity event, including when Coinbase received the threat communication, what data was claimed/exfiltrated, and the Company’s response and investigation status.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary focus is the company’s internal management (Risk Management Team) roles, responsibilities, and reporting to the Audit Committee regarding cybersecurity risk. Board oversight is mentioned, but it is largely derivative of the management team’s informing/briefing activities.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential cybersecurity risks and their possible business impacts, culminating in a standalone materiality conclusion that risks 'have, to date, not materially affected' the company, fitting Strategy Integration. No incident narrative or internal processes are described, confirming the category.

provider: x-ai


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, managing cybersecurity risks, and integrating them into enterprise risk management, directly matching Risk Management Process. Vendor threats are mentioned as a component within these internal processes, not as the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity risks, including receiving reports from the ERM Committee, CIO, and VP Infrastructure, which directly matches Board Governance criteria where the board committee is the grammatical subject.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal multi-stakeholder team composition and processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks through monitoring, scans, and assessments, which aligns with Risk Management Process. Third-party providers are integrated as components of this internal process rather than the central focus.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's internal risk management processes, including the Enterprise Risk Management Program (ERM), annual Enterprise Risk Assessments (ERA), risk prioritization into categories, mitigation, quarterly monitoring, and reporting to leadership, making 'Risk Management Process' the clear fit as it focuses on their own processes.


reasoning: This paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident, including the determination date, unauthorized access by a third party, response measures, business disruption, and ongoing investigation with law enforcement notification, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure as the dominant topic.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including the date it occurred (April 24, 2024), the affected system (Dropbox Sign, formerly HelloSign), scope of data accessed, response actions, and limitations, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure as the dominant topic.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including the detection date, unauthorized access to IT systems, response actions like activating incident procedures and engaging external experts, and operational disruptions, making Incident Disclosure the clear fit.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident including the date it was determined (March 10, 2024), unauthorized access to portions of the information environment, response actions, business disruption, and remediation status, making Incident Disclosure the clear fit.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Chief Technology Officer's identification, qualifications, responsibilities, and reporting to the General Counsel, making 'Management Role' the most applicable category as management roles are the grammatical subjects.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including biannual reviews involving specific roles like CISO and CIO, mitigation plans, and annual Board reviews, aligning directly with 'Risk Management Process'. Named roles provide firm-specific organizational details but no verifiable facts for higher specificity.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident including the timeline of access (late November 2023), scope (small percentage of employee emails from specific functions), actor activities (exfiltration and attempts on source code), and ongoing response, making Incident Disclosure the clear fit. No other category applies as it lacks focus on governance, processes, or strategy.


reasoning: The paragraph details the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks, delegation to the audit committee for review, and reporting cadence, making Board Governance the clear fit as the board/committee is the grammatical subject. The named audit committee is an organizational fact supporting Firm-Specific level.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying and describing the qualifications, experience, and responsibilities of specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director) and their supporting team, making 'Management Role' the most applicable category.


reasoning: This paragraph consists of a negative materiality disclosure denying past material impacts from incidents and a cross-reference to Risk Factors, fitting the 'None/Other' category for disclaimers and non-substantive content per tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual ongoing cybersecurity incident, including its unknown full scope, material impact on business operations, and undetermined financial effects, fitting Incident Disclosure as the dominant topic over Strategy Integration per tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized activity detection, containment steps, system isolation on a specific date, and notifications, making Incident Disclosure the clear fit. It contains exactly one verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific with no organizational facts or additional verifiables for higher levels.


reasoning: This paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident, including the detection date, unauthorized access to IT systems, and immediate response actions like investigation and system shutdown, making 'Incident Disclosure' the clear fit.


reasoning: This paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident, including the date the company became aware (November 25, 2024), the threat actor's actions (illegal access and data encryption), and the response (containment, investigation, external specialists), making Incident Disclosure the clear fit.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses incorporating cybersecurity risk management into overall enterprise risk management programs, sharing methodologies, reporting, and governance, which aligns with Risk Management Process due to ERM integration. It contains no specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management process, including a risk-based approach to evaluating third-party vendors based on criticality and size, which fits 'Risk Management Process' as vendors are a component of the internal processes rather than the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and its receipt of updates from the audit committee, directly matching Board Governance criteria where the board or committee is the grammatical subject.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Committee's receipt of reports from management on cybersecurity risks and incidents, as well as its reporting to the full Board, making the board committee the central grammatical subject and fitting Board Governance.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's response to a real cybersecurity incident, including cooperation with law enforcement, assessment of notification obligations, and evaluation of material impacts, which aligns with Incident Disclosure; financial impact mentions are secondary per tiebreakers.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic disclaimer about potential cybersecurity risks and includes a cross-reference to Risk Factors, with no substantive disclosure on governance, processes, or incidents.


reasoning: This paragraph states a standalone materiality conclusion that the incident is not reasonably likely to materially impact financial condition or results, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It lacks any incident narrative, ruling out Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph details the ongoing forensic investigation and current status of a specific cybersecurity incident, directly matching the Incident Disclosure category as it describes response to a real event rather than general processes or hypotheticals.


reasoning: The paragraph states a standalone materiality conclusion that the Incident is not reasonably likely to materially impact financial condition or operations, which aligns with Strategy Integration per guidelines. It lacks any incident narrative or description, ruling out Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a cybersecurity incident, including system restoration efforts, retention of experts, collaboration with law enforcement, and regulatory notifications, which aligns with Incident Disclosure for actual event response in an Item 1.05 filing.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to a specific cyber incident by seeking insurance reimbursements for costs, expenses, and losses, fitting the 'response' aspect of Incident Disclosure. No other category better captures the focus on actions following a real event in an Item 1.05 filing.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal cybersecurity risk management strategy, including framework adoption (CIS Controls), risk assessments integrated with ERM, infrastructure design, dedicated personnel, and training programs, making 'Risk Management Process' the dominant category. Brief mentions of board committee review are components of the internal process, not board oversight as the focus.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's internal incident evaluation, escalation procedures, Incident Response Program, and Business Continuity Plan, including reassessment of risks and training, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own processes. Vendor mentions are peripheral components of internal continuity plans, not central.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the company's own internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including threat assessment, layered security, training, industry standards, third-party assessments, and vendor compliance, making 'Risk Management Process' the best fit. Vendor and third-party elements are components of these internal processes, not the central topic.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer referencing an unspecified 'Incident' without describing it, including cross-references to Risk Factors, fitting 'None/Other' for disclaimers and non-substantive content. No actual incident details or cybersecurity processes are disclosed.


reasoning: This paragraph provides generic boilerplate descriptions of cybersecurity risks, data storage, threats, and potential impacts without referencing board oversight, specific management roles, detailed internal processes, third-party risks, incidents, or strategy integration, qualifying as non-substantive disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident, including the date of material impact determination, unauthorized access by a third party, exfiltration of files with sensitive information, response measures like system shutdowns and restoration, and ongoing assessments, making Incident Disclosure the dominant category.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a detailed narrative of a specific cybersecurity incident, including what happened (website defacement by a bad actor), when (August 25, 2025), scope (wytecintl.com), response (restoration from backups, site takedown, forensic review), and impacts (canceled seminar), clearly fitting 'Incident Disclosure' over other categories.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including dates of updates, scope of access (33 million accounts, 3,000 affected), perpetrator cooperation, data deletion, and compensation program details, making 'Incident Disclosure' the clear fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily identifies specific management roles and team composition (e.g., CFO, CLO, Sr. Director of IT) comprising the Risk Management Team and their responsibilities in monitoring cybersecurity risks and informing the Audit Committee, aligning with Management Role category. While board oversight is mentioned, the grammatical focus is on management's structure and activities.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a detailed narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, including the date of the threat actor's communication, how the data was obtained via contractors outside the US, the scope of accessed information (customer accounts and internal documentation), detection via security monitoring, response actions (terminations, protections, warnings), and cooperation with law enforcement, making 'Incident Disclosure' the clear fit.