content_category: Strategy Integration

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph’s primary substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that the company is not aware of prior cybersecurity threats that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect it. The remaining language is generic risk-warning and cross-reference boilerplate, not incident, governance, or process detail.

provider: openai

stage: benchmark


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a generic limitation/disclaimer about cybersecurity risk and a cross-reference to Risk Factors, rather than a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party risk, or an actual incident. Its materiality language is speculative ('may affect') and therefore does not constitute a strategy/materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity threats and incidents have not materially affected and are not reasonably likely to materially affect the company. It does not describe governance, management qualifications, or specific risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a materiality assessment: the company states it has not experienced a material cybersecurity incident and is not aware of any such incident at its service providers. It does not primarily describe governance, management qualifications, or a detailed risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph's substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected the business to date, with additional forward-looking cautionary language about possible future effects. It does not primarily describe governance structure, management qualifications, or risk management processes.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity operating model and incident-response approach, not the qualifications or identity of particular managers. Although management is mentioned, the substance is about how the cybersecurity program functions through a multi-disciplinary process.


reasoning: The paragraph's only substantive cybersecurity disclosure is a negative materiality-style assertion that the company has not experienced any recent material cybersecurity incidents. The rest is generic forward-looking risk language and a cross-reference, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an internal cybersecurity risk-management structure and what it does—managing cyber-related operational risks and reviewing security, continuity, and recovery processes. Although a named team is identified, the focus is on the company’s process and program activities rather than board oversight or personnel qualifications.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about possible cybersecurity-related disruptions and adverse effects, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, or an actual incident. Its materiality language is speculative ('could'/'may have a material adverse effect'), so it does not qualify as a Strategy Integration assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph’s central substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that the company is not aware of cybersecurity threats or incidents that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the company. The rest of the paragraph is generic risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors.


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. The remaining text is only a cross-reference to risk factors and does not change the primary category.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and escalation structure for cybersecurity oversight, showing how information flows from the CISO to senior management and then to the board level. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is not on qualifications or identity but on the oversight chain.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and incident/risk management activities, not the qualifications or identity of a particular executive. The named role is incidental to explaining how the process operates, and the remaining text still reads as a process description.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that the company has not been materially affected by a cybersecurity breach to date. The rest is generic forward-looking risk language and cross-references to risk factors, not process, governance, or incident-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s cybersecurity risk management activities—controls, assessments, incident response planning, ISMS oversight, and training—rather than the qualifications of a specific executive. Although the CFO is mentioned, removing that role still leaves a coherent description of the company’s internal cybersecurity process.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including incident monitoring, response-plan operation, and disclosure procedures for material incidents. Although a specific team is named, the focus is on how the process works rather than on qualifications or governance oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity—how the Compliance Committee, senior management, and the Board are informed and connected—rather than focusing on an individual’s qualifications or the company’s technical risk processes themselves.


reasoning: This paragraph is a general statement about the importance of cybersecurity and the types of threats the company and its ecosystem face, without describing governance, management roles, processes, or any actual incident. Its 'could materially adversely affect' language is a generic risk warning rather than a materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal process for embedding cybersecurity risk management into business processes and decision-making, rather than focusing on board oversight or the qualifications of a particular officer. The CSO is mentioned as part of that process, so this fits Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity, including how leadership and the Board receive updates and oversee cyber risk. Although management roles are named, they are presented as part of the governance chain rather than for their individual qualifications.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: Although the paragraph mentions the company's risk management program, its most distinctive disclosure is the oversight chain: the CISO has responsibility for cybersecurity and reports to the board's IT/Cybersecurity Committee. That upward reporting structure makes Board Governance the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the Board—i.e., the oversight structure and topics reviewed with directors—so it is Board Governance rather than a management-role or process paragraph. Its only qualifying specific fact is the involvement of the Chief Information Officer, which makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board and committee oversight structure for cybersecurity, including how management and the CISO report upward to the Board and specific committees. Although it mentions risk assessment activities, the dominant purpose is governance and oversight rather than the internal risk process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for risk management: the full Board oversees risk management and receives reports from the Chief Risk Officer. It is about governance and reporting lines upward to the Board, not the officer’s qualifications or the company’s cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity operating process: a management committee overseeing initiatives and business-unit personnel monitoring dashboards and coordinating responses. It is not focused on board oversight or on the qualifications of specific individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow for cybersecurity, from the CIO and SIRT to the Audit Committee and then to the Board. Although it includes some detail about the CIO’s expertise, the main purpose is governance rather than management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity risk information is managed and integrated into the company’s broader enterprise risk management and internal audit processes, rather than focusing on the officer’s qualifications or board oversight structure. The named cybersecurity-specific role makes the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and escalation flow for cybersecurity risk—from management committees to the ERMC, Risk Committee, and Board—so it is Board Governance. It includes firm-specific named committees, which makes it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about governance and oversight structure, describing how the IT Management team reports cybersecurity information upward to the Risk Committee. Its main purpose is to explain board-level committee oversight rather than internal process details or management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company monitors and manages cybersecurity risks through internal briefings, threat intelligence, external sources, and security-tool alerts, which makes it a process description. The named cybersecurity roles are incidental to that process rather than the focus of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity processes, including monitoring, incident response procedures, and employee training. Although a specific officer and team are mentioned, they are presented as part of how the process operates rather than as biographical or qualification-focused management disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference directing readers to risk factors elsewhere and does not provide substantive cybersecurity disclosure. The materiality phrasing does not state a company assessment here; it merely points to another section.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow for cybersecurity, including how management is briefed and how updates are provided upward to the Board or Audit Committee. Although management is discussed, the purpose is governance-chain oversight rather than describing management qualifications or the underlying risk process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity risk, from management committees and officers up to the Board and Board Risk Committee. Although management roles are named, the main purpose is governance-chain disclosure rather than describing qualifications or credentials.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow for cybersecurity, including the board committee, management committee, and reporting chain from the CISO upward. Although management roles are mentioned, they are presented as part of the governance framework rather than as biographical role descriptions.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal approach to identifying, assessing, and addressing cybersecurity risk through management and cross-functional collaboration. Although certain roles are mentioned, the focus is not on their qualifications or governance oversight structure, but on the risk management process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary purpose is a materiality-oriented assessment that cybersecurity threats, if realized, are reasonably likely to materially affect the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. It does not describe governance structure, management qualifications, or a concrete incident, and the cross-reference to Item 1A is secondary.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity, including how management reports upward to board-level committees and how incidents are escalated to the Board. Although specific officers are named, the focus is governance flow rather than their qualifications or backgrounds.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to risk factors elsewhere in the filing rather than a substantive cybersecurity disclosure. Although it uses materiality language, it does not provide an actual materiality assessment, governance detail, process description, or incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's internal cybersecurity oversight and evaluation process—an enterprise-wide management program and related review activities—rather than board oversight or the qualifications of particular individuals. The reference to an executive security council provides a firm-specific governance/process detail.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's cybersecurity oversight structure: authority is delegated from one council to another, chaired by the CISO, with cross-functional representation and escalation responsibilities. Although it describes monitoring activities, the main purpose is governance and escalation architecture rather than the operational risk process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain and information flow to the board, which makes it a board governance disclosure rather than a management-role description. It includes firm-specific governance actors (ITSC and the Chief Information Officer), but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph refers to actual attempted unauthorized access efforts against the company's information systems and notes they were prevented, which makes it most analogous to incident-related disclosure rather than governance or process description. However, it remains highly generic and primarily framed as a cautionary statement without concrete incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how Union's cybersecurity program is implemented and supported internally, including the team structure managing cyber risk. Although it names the ISO and reporting line, it does not focus on the ISO's qualifications or biography, so it is better classified as Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk supervision and information-gathering process—how management monitors and responds to cyber risks—rather than identifying specific officers, board oversight structures, or any actual incident. It contains only generic sources of cyber information and monitoring practices, with no qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity, including how information flows from management to a board committee and leadership teams. Although the CTO is mentioned, the focus is on governance mechanics rather than the CTO’s qualifications or identity.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow for cybersecurity risk: the ERC's role, its linkage to the BRC, and the interim CISO's reporting upward. Although management roles are mentioned, they are presented as part of the governance chain rather than as biographical or qualification details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity management activities and processes, such as integrating cyber risk into business processes, preparing for incidents, approving processes, and reviewing assessments. It does not identify specific individuals or qualifications, so it is not about management roles.


reasoning: Although the paragraph names the CDO, its main purpose is to describe the company's internal cybersecurity management activities and strategy development rather than the executive's qualifications or background. It contains no qualifying firm-specific facts under the allowed specificity rules.


reasoning: This paragraph is generic background language about the importance of cybersecurity and dependence on IT systems, without describing governance, management roles, processes, third-party oversight, incidents, or a materiality assessment. It contains no company-specific cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity program, operational structure, controls, training, and framework alignment, making it a risk management process disclosure rather than a personnel-bio paragraph. Although it names the CIO and CISO, the focus is on how InfoSec is organized and operated, not on their qualifications or backgrounds.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management structure and the existence of an incident response plan, which makes the process the main subject. Although the Chief Information Officer is named, the paragraph is not about that person's qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cyber risk management process and protective activities, with the named executives presented as part of administering that process rather than as a discussion of their qualifications or governance oversight structure. The roles mentioned are not cybersecurity-specific titles under the specificity rules, and the paragraph includes no qualifying firm-specific facts, dates, frameworks, or named tools/firms.


reasoning: The paragraph's primary substance is a backward-looking materiality assessment stating that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The rest is a cross-reference to risk factors and does not change the main category.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the board, specifically the Audit Committee's oversight through updates and reports. Although management's cybersecurity team is mentioned, the focus is the board oversight structure rather than management qualifications or internal process details.


reasoning: The paragraph's primary substantive disclosure is a backward-looking materiality assessment that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the company to date, which fits Strategy Integration. The mentions of threats and breaches are generic and do not describe any specific incident, date, system, or response.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight chain for cybersecurity risk—how information flows from the Information Security Department through management bodies to the Board Risk Committee. Although management roles are named, their purpose here is to explain oversight structure rather than qualifications or identity.


reasoning: The paragraph's primary substance is a materiality assessment: it states cybersecurity threats could materially affect the company and that it has not experienced material adverse effects to date. The rest is a generic cross-reference to risk factors rather than a description of governance, management, or process.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's internal responsibility structure for assessing and managing cybersecurity risk through its risk management program. It does not focus on the COO's qualifications or identity, and the references to management and external consultants are generic rather than specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity threats, including monitoring and evaluation activities. Although a third-party firm and internal personnel are mentioned, they are described as part of the company's overall risk management process rather than as the central subject of vendor oversight or management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's incident detection, escalation, and response workflow, including how threats are assessed and managed through conclusion. Although it includes escalation to leadership, the Audit Committee, and the Board, those oversight references are secondary to the operational response process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity risk management process—how risks are detected, assessed, managed, and supported by controls, monitoring, training, and third-party services. Although it mentions the CTO’s experience, that detail is secondary to the description of the company’s internal cybersecurity program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity risk: management reports to the Information Technology Steering Committee, which in turn feeds information up to the full Board. Although management is mentioned, the focus is on governance flow rather than personnel qualifications or internal process details.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about cybersecurity oversight structure—how the TRCC oversees technology and cyber risk and escalates issues to the ERC and other committees—rather than describing operational risk processes. It includes firm-specific governance details such as named committees and the CISO's inclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight structure: a named risk governance committee, the escalation chain, and reporting to the Board. Although it includes management qualifications, those details support the governance description rather than making the paragraph mainly about management biographies.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk—linking the Board, a board committee, and management to responsibility for assessing and managing cyber risk. It does not focus on individual qualifications or on detailed risk-management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the board's oversight structure and information flow, with the CTO reporting cybersecurity developments upward to the board. Although it references risk evaluation activities, the main focus is governance rather than the details of the risk management process itself.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic forward-looking risk statement about possible operational disruption from cybersecurity incidents, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, strategy/materiality assessment, or an actual incident. It contains no company-specific facts or substantive cybersecurity program disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board-level oversight structure for cybersecurity, identifying the committees that oversee the information security team and receive updates from management. Although it mentions the CISO and a certification, those details are secondary to the governance chain and do not make management qualifications the main topic.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic cybersecurity risk warning about potential adverse effects and does not describe governance, management roles, a risk management process, third-party oversight, or any actual incident. It also does not contain a materiality assessment conclusion, only speculative boilerplate that incidents could adversely affect the company.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity risk: the Board, Audit Committee, and an officer reporting upward on cyber matters. Although it names the SVP, Head of Legal and Compliance, the focus is not on that person's qualifications or identity but on governance responsibilities and escalation paths.


reasoning: This is a generic hypothetical risk statement about possible consequences of a data breach, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, incident details, or a materiality assessment. It contains no cybersecurity-specific factual detail beyond boilerplate risk language.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the internal cybersecurity leadership and team—who leads it, how it is structured, and what qualifications its members hold—rather than detailing the company's cyber risk processes. The inclusion of the CISO, information security directors, and named certifications makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity: board-level oversight by the Audit Committee and coordination by a cybersecurity-specific officer. Although incident response procedures are mentioned, the main focus is the governance chain rather than the operational process itself.


reasoning: Although Mr. Daly is mentioned, the paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity monitoring, testing, incident evaluation, and escalation processes. The named certifications provide firm-linked, verifiable detail beyond generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the cybersecurity oversight structure and reporting flow from the CISO to the CIDO, Audit Committee, and Board, making board oversight the central topic. Although it includes some management-experience detail and process elements, those are embedded within a governance-chain description.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a generic warning about possible cybersecurity harm and states a lack of resources, rather than describing a governance structure, management role, risk management process, third-party oversight program, or a real incident. It also contains only speculative material-impact language, not a materiality assessment or substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the Board and Audit Committee are briefed, and the CIO reports upward on cybersecurity matters. Although it ends with a qualification detail about the CIO, that detail is secondary to the governance-chain disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: management oversees and administers the program and the Audit Committee provides board-level oversight. Although it mentions management's experience and use of third parties, those details are generic and serve the broader governance description rather than identifying specific management qualifications or a distinct process.


reasoning: Although the paragraph mentions the Senior Director of Cybersecurity's experience, its main focus is the company's cybersecurity program responsibilities and the internal committee structure used to review risk, detection, remediation, and posture. That makes it primarily a description of the company's risk management process rather than a standalone management-biography paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity: a management committee governs the technology and information security programs and the Information Security Officer escalates key issues to the board. Although specific officers are named, the main purpose is explaining governance and reporting flow rather than their qualifications or the operational risk process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the escalation and oversight structure for cybersecurity incidents, including how information flows from advisors and management up to executive leadership, the Audit Committee, and ultimately the Board. Although it mentions incident response activities, the core focus is governance and reporting lines rather than the underlying risk management process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on who oversees cybersecurity and emphasizes their background and experience, which makes it primarily about management qualifications rather than the process itself. Although it references monitoring and the incident response plan, the central disclosure is the identity and experience profile of the overseeing personnel.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity processes, including monitoring information systems and following a written incident response runbook. Although the CICSO is mentioned, the focus is not on that person’s qualifications or identity, but on how the cybersecurity program operates.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-related assessment and business-impact framing: it states the company has not experienced any material cybersecurity threats or incidents and discusses insurance coverage and potential effects. It does not describe governance structure, management qualifications, or a specific risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and how management monitors, prevents, detects, mitigates, and responds to threats and incidents. Although it mentions reporting to the Board, the main focus is the operational risk management process rather than the board's oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight structure, including governance bodies, the CISO's reporting upward, and how management and the board review cybersecurity matters. Although executives are mentioned, the focus is on governance and information flow rather than individual qualifications or operational risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about VF's cybersecurity program and related processes, including detection, response, training, incident response planning, and third-party risk management. Although it includes qualifications of the CISO, those details are embedded within a broader description of the company's overall cybersecurity risk management program.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic description of common cybersecurity threats and attack vectors, not a disclosure of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, an actual incident, or a company-specific materiality assessment. It contains no firm-specific facts or recognized frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph is mainly about the company’s internal cybersecurity management process—how cybersecurity matters are communicated and addressed—rather than describing the SVP of IT’s qualifications or identity. It does not involve board oversight, so Risk Management Process is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes and who implements them, rather than focusing on the individual's biography alone. The named cybersecurity role and stated experience make the disclosure firm-specific, but it does not contain two clearly verifiable hard facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph is centered on cybersecurity risks 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, but no hard verifiable facts such as dates, amounts, or named vendors.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary purpose is a backward-looking materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition to date. The mentions of past threats and breaches are generic and non-substantive, and the paragraph mainly points readers to risk factors for more information.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company manages cybersecurity risk operationally through outsourced security providers and internal reporting/escalation for prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation. It does not focus on board oversight, and it does not provide person-specific qualifications that would make it a Management Role paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Honda's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, reporting, and supervision process rather than focusing on an individual's qualifications or board oversight. Although it includes a named committee and organizational structure, the main subject is how cybersecurity risks are assessed and escalated within management.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and escalation structure for cybersecurity, including how information flows from management to leadership, the Audit Committee, and the Board. Although the CIO is mentioned, the focus is not on the individual's qualifications but on the governance chain and reporting process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a cybersecurity materiality assessment, stating that the company has not experienced a threat or incident that materially affected its business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The remainder is a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management roles, or risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company executes its cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes through its CSIRT and related activities, not mainly about the director’s biography. Although it includes role and experience details, those support a broader description of the company’s internal cybersecurity process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management workflow—assessment, assignment, remediation, and collaboration with risk owners. Although specific officers are named, they are described in service of the process rather than for their qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting chain for cybersecurity matters—management reporting to a board committee and the committee reporting to the full Board—so it is best classified as Board Governance. It is firm-specific because it identifies the Chief Technology Officer, but otherwise relies mostly on generic governance language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain for cybersecurity risk, linking board-level oversight, management responsibility, and reporting to the committee. Although it includes process details and CIO qualifications, the main purpose is to explain how cybersecurity oversight is structured and escalated.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section rather than a substantive cybersecurity disclosure. Although it mentions material effects, it does not itself provide a materiality assessment or describe governance, management, process, third-party risk, or an actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph's main purpose is to state a materiality assessment that prior cybersecurity threats or incidents have not materially affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The rest is forward-looking caution and a cross-reference, not a description of governance, management, process, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity: a management committee oversees the technology and information security programs and reports key issues up to the board. Although several officers are named, they are presented as part of the oversight chain rather than for their qualifications or biographies.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity, including how information flows from the CISO and internal teams up to the audit committee or Board. Although it mentions operational activities, the central focus is the governance chain rather than the CISO's qualifications or the detailed mechanics of the risk program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes governance structure and escalation: a management risk committee oversees cybersecurity risk as part of enterprise risk review and reports cybersecurity matters upward to another committee. Although management roles are listed, the main purpose is the oversight chain rather than the qualifications or identity of those individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how cybersecurity-related information is communicated upward to the full Board, which makes it a board oversight structure disclosure. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific facts beyond generic governance flow and undefined role acronyms.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity matters from management up to the Board and Audit Committee. Although the IT Director and CFO are mentioned, the main purpose is governance-chain disclosure rather than detailing management qualifications or internal risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main purpose is a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected the company and are not reasonably likely to materially affect business strategy, financial condition, or results of operations. The remaining language is generic cautionary language and a cross-reference, not a description of governance, management roles, or specific risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, emphasizing Board oversight and how cyber risk is addressed within governance. It does not provide person-specific qualifications or process detail beyond a generic oversight statement.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's process for monitoring and responding to cybersecurity incidents, including detection, mitigation, remediation, and information inputs. Although service providers are mentioned, vendor oversight is not the central topic, so this fits Risk Management Process rather than Third-Party Risk.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity risk identification and assessment activities—monitoring the threat environment, using threat intelligence, scans, and other testing—rather than focusing on the qualifications or identity of a specific individual. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, firms, tools, or cybersecurity-specific roles from the allowed list.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity program, controls, assessments, and threat-identification process; the named officers are included as part of how the program operates rather than as biographical role descriptions. The presence of cybersecurity-specific roles makes the disclosure firm-specific, but it lacks two or more hard verifiable facts such as dates, named vendors, tools, or amounts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary substance is a materiality assessment that cybersecurity risks and past threats or breaches have not materially affected the company to date, with a cross-reference to risk factors for potential future effects. The incident references are generic and do not describe any specific event, so this is not Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight structure and escalation path, including how material incidents are reported upward and the role of an internal advisory board. Although it mentions management roles and advisory activities, the main focus is governance and information flow rather than individual qualifications or operational process details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity, including how management evaluates issues and reports them upward to the audit committee and board. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain governance and information flow rather than qualifications of those individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph's main substance is a materiality assessment: it states that prior cybersecurity threats/incidents have not materially affected the company and points readers to risk factors for potential future material effects. It does not primarily describe governance, management qualifications, or specific risk-management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph’s most substantive disclosure is a backward-looking materiality assessment that the company has not detected a significant compromise, significant data loss, or material financial losses from cybersecurity attacks to date. The rest is generic forward-looking risk language about cyber threats and does not describe governance, management qualifications, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive disclosure is a negative materiality-style assertion that the company is not aware of prior material cybersecurity incidents, followed by generic statements about possible business impacts. It does not describe a real incident or a specific risk management process, and the cross-reference to Item 1A is ancillary.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company's cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes are implemented and maintained, so the main topic is the internal process rather than the executive's biography. Although it includes role and experience details, those support the description of who leads the process rather than making qualifications the central focus.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic description of potential cyber threats and possible consequences, not a description of AFG's governance structure, management roles, risk management process, third-party oversight, or any actual incident. Its use of 'material risks' is not a materiality assessment, but boilerplate risk language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity: a management committee, its reporting to the Board, and how cybersecurity information flows upward to directors. Although the CIO is named, the focus is governance and Board oversight rather than the CIO's qualifications or role biography.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about who is responsible for cybersecurity oversight and includes role-specific qualifications for the Security Operations Center Manager, which makes it a management-role description rather than a process description. It does not focus on board oversight, a specific incident, or vendor-risk requirements.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and reporting structure for cybersecurity oversight, including how information flows from the CISO to management committees, the Audit Committee, and the Board. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is on oversight mechanics rather than the CISO's qualifications or role profile.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the escalation and reporting path from management to the Audit Committee and Board in the event of a material cybersecurity incident, which is a governance oversight structure. It contains only generic entities and policies, with no qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight chain for cybersecurity risk, moving from the Board to the Audit Committee and then to management roles. Although specific officers are named, the main purpose is to explain how oversight is structured rather than to describe their qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity monitoring and response process—how management supervises prevention, detection, mitigation, remediation, and receives inputs from personnel, intelligence sources, consultants, and tools. It does not identify specific officers, qualifications, named committees, or a real incident.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s cybersecurity risk management approach—its integration into enterprise risk management and use of recognized frameworks—rather than the board’s oversight structure. Although the Board is mentioned, the main substance describes internal cybersecurity processes and framework-based risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity matters, including updates to the full board and escalation of material threats and incidents to the Audit Committee. Although the COO is mentioned, the focus is governance rather than the executive's qualifications or role profile.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain for cybersecurity risk: Board oversight, management responsibilities, escalation of significant incidents to the audit committee and then the Board. Although it includes a statement about no incidents in certain fiscal years, the main purpose is governance structure rather than incident disclosure or management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the Board and Audit Committee receive briefings, and the CIO reports upward on cyber matters. Although it ends with the CIO’s experience, that detail is secondary to the governance chain being described.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and reporting structure between management and the Board, including how cybersecurity information flows upward. It does not identify specific officers, committees, frameworks, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows from management to the Board, making it a governance-oversight disclosure rather than a description of management qualifications or internal risk processes. The presence of cybersecurity-specific roles (CISO and CIO) makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily identifies which management roles are responsible for cybersecurity and describes their experience and supporting team composition, making it chiefly about management responsibility rather than the process itself. It includes firm-specific role and team details, but only one hard quantitative fact, so it does not reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance chain for cybersecurity oversight: the Board directs management and the executive team handles related oversight responsibilities such as budgets, priorities, and reporting. It is not mainly about individual qualifications or a detailed risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure for cybersecurity, including which committee is responsible and how information flows from management to the board. Although it mentions the Information Security Officer, the focus is governance and reporting rather than that officer's qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how cybersecurity information flows to the board through periodic briefings, which makes it a governance-structure disclosure. Its only qualifying specific fact is the identified technology leadership role involved in that reporting chain.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic list of potential cybersecurity harms and consequences using speculative 'could' language, not a description of governance, management roles, processes, third-party risk, strategy/materiality assessment, or an actual incident. It reads as boilerplate risk warning rather than substantive Item 1C cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is framed around oversight structure: the Board approves and oversees the IS Program, the CISO coordinates it, and incident escalation includes senior leadership and the Board. Although it also describes response activities, the primary purpose is to explain governance and reporting relationships.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to risk factors and contains generic forward-looking risk warning language rather than a substantive cybersecurity governance, management, process, third-party, incident, or materiality assessment disclosure. The material adverse effect wording appears in boilerplate risk-factor references, which does not make it Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph's substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that the company has not experienced a cybersecurity incident it deemed material. The remaining language is generic IT dependence and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management, or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity matters—management briefings to the audit committee and updates from the audit committee to the Board. It does not provide person-specific qualifications or firm-unique operational details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a materiality-related assessment that the company has not experienced any material cybersecurity threats or incidents in recent years, with a forward-looking caution about possible future incidents. It does not describe governance, management qualifications, or risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity matters from management roles up to the Board and Audit Committee, which makes it Board Governance. It includes firm-specific governance details such as the CISO/CTO roles, the Enterprise Risk Management Committee, and the six-component Information Security program.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to risk factors elsewhere in the filing and does not provide substantive cybersecurity disclosure. Although it mentions risks that may materially affect the company, it does not state a materiality conclusion or describe governance, management, process, third-party risk, or an actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight structure: the Board, Audit Committee, management, and the Security Steering Group as part of the governance chain. Although it also mentions policies and processes, the central focus is how oversight is organized and who is involved.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure and information flow to the board committee, which makes it Board Governance rather than Management Role. It includes firm-specific cybersecurity roles (Chief Information Officer and CISO), but no two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity: the board has delegated oversight to a subsidiary-level committee, which in turn provides updates to the board. Although the CEO is mentioned, the focus is on governance flow rather than management qualifications or internal risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive disclosure is a negative materiality-style assertion that the company has had no material cybersecurity threats or incidents to date, which falls under Strategy Integration. The rest of the paragraph is generic forward-looking risk language and a cross-reference, with no firm-specific cyber details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and escalation structure for cybersecurity matters, culminating with the Compliance Committee and the full Board, which makes it a board-governance disclosure. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is on information flow upward rather than the CISO's qualifications or role background.


reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment stating that the company has not experienced any material cybersecurity events. The remaining language is generic risk warning and a cross-reference to risk factors, which does not change the primary category.


reasoning: This paragraph appears to list topics considered in the company's cybersecurity oversight structure, such as personnel qualifications and cybersecurity strategy and resourcing, which aligns best with board-level governance rather than describing management credentials or operational processes. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named roles, committees, frameworks, dates, or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight structure: a named committee reviews cybersecurity updates and approves strategy proposed by a cybersecurity officer. Although the committee is a management committee rather than the board, the substance is governance/oversight rather than the qualifications of any individual manager.


reasoning: This paragraph is a SPAC/no-operations disclosure stating the company did not have business operations and had not adopted a cybersecurity program or formal processes. Under the rules, SPAC disclosures describing the absence of a program are classified as None/Other rather than as a substantive cybersecurity process disclosure.


reasoning: Although the paragraph opens with Board oversight, its primary focus is the company’s cybersecurity program and how cyber risk is managed through integrated policies, standards, and processes. The only concrete specifics are references to recognized frameworks (ISO and NIST), which makes the disclosure sector-adapted rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily states the absence of a cybersecurity program or formal processes and gives a minimal, contingent oversight statement, which for a SPAC/shell-type company is classified as None/Other rather than substantive governance, process, or strategy disclosure. Although it includes a materiality statement, the dominant point is that the company has not adopted a cybersecurity program or formal processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and reporting structure for cybersecurity oversight—how the CISO/CRO support the Board and risk committee, how reports flow upward, and how escalation occurs. Although management roles are mentioned, the purpose is to explain oversight mechanics rather than personnel qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the senior IT leader and the supporting team's qualifications and responsibilities, rather than board oversight or a standalone risk process. The inclusion of the Senior Vice President of Information Technology and the stated experience level makes it firm-specific, but it lacks two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, including the roles of the Board, management, and the Audit Committee, and how significant incidents are escalated. Although management responsibilities are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain governance and reporting lines rather than management qualifications or process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity risk—management under the CFO with oversight from the Board—rather than detailing a person's qualifications or the company's risk management processes. It contains no qualifying specific facts because both the CFO and Board are generic roles for specificity purposes.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing readers to Item 1A risk factors rather than providing substantive cybersecurity governance, process, incident, or materiality conclusions in the paragraph itself. Its function is incorporative and procedural, so it fits None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the composition of an internal committee that supports the company’s cybersecurity oversight/process structure, rather than a board oversight chain or a standalone biography of one executive. It includes firm-specific details such as a named committee, cybersecurity-specific roles, and a quantified experience detail, but not two qualifying hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure for cybersecurity, including how the CIO reports cyber information upward to the Board. Although it includes some management qualifications, the main purpose is the governance chain rather than a standalone biography of management personnel.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management process and who oversees it, rather than board oversight structure or the qualifications of any individual officer. The specific cross-functional team composition makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight structure for cybersecurity policies and processes, identifying who exercises oversight rather than describing management qualifications or the underlying risk processes themselves. It includes firm-specific governance facts through the named cybersecurity role and named committee.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk within AFG's ERM framework, including the ERC, the Enterprise Risk Officer, and the involvement of a director with cyber oversight training. Although it references ERM and management participants, the main focus is governance and oversight rather than the details of the cybersecurity process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity controls and processes, including technical safeguards and procedures for addressing risks from third-party technology and services. Although management roles are mentioned, the substance is the operation of the cybersecurity program rather than the qualifications or identity of those individuals.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance chain for cybersecurity incidents—management assesses threats and escalates reportable incidents to the board—rather than detailing internal risk processes or management qualifications. It contains only generic references to management and the board, with no qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes oversight structure and reporting flow for cybersecurity matters: management/CFO oversight, escalation of significant incidents to the board, and updates to the Audit Committee. Although it includes a negative statement about material incidents, that is secondary to the governance description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity, including delegation from the board to a board committee and reporting by management upward, which fits Board Governance. Although it also mentions a collaborative internal approach, that process description is secondary to the governance chain.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a governance and oversight structure: a named committee, its chair, and its reporting line to another named committee. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is not on that officer’s qualifications or role profile, but on how cyber-related oversight is organized.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about possible cybersecurity threats and speculative adverse effects, not a description of governance, management roles, a concrete risk process, vendor oversight requirements, or an actual incident. The mention of service providers is incidental and does not make third-party risk the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about who is responsible for cybersecurity and their experience, rather than describing the company’s cybersecurity process itself. The inclusion of the IT Lead’s 11 years of relevant experience makes management qualifications the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s process for evaluating, redesigning, implementing, and monitoring safeguards after risk assessments, so the main topic is internal cybersecurity risk management. Although it mentions individuals and their experience, those details support who manages the process rather than making the paragraph chiefly about management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight structure—board oversight through the Risk Committee, reporting from the Cybersecurity Committee, and the management reporting chain—so Board Governance is the best fit. Although it includes CISO qualifications, those details are secondary to describing how cybersecurity oversight flows from management to the board.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity function and responsibilities—risk measurement, prevention, detection, mitigation, remediation, and reporting flows—rather than focusing on the executive’s qualifications. It includes a firm-specific role fact, but lacks multiple hard verifiable details such as dates, named vendors, tools, or quantified metrics.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes governance structure and oversight responsibilities, including how a management committee supports the cybersecurity program and reports up to a board-level committee. Its main purpose is the oversight chain and information flow, which fits Board Governance rather than risk process or management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity operations and risk management mechanisms, including the incident response team, program management, GRC platform, and use of external support. Although it mentions management roles and experience, those details are embedded in describing how the cybersecurity program functions rather than focusing on qualifications as the main topic.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity-related planning and improvement process—defining a work plan, setting control objectives, incorporating third-party assessment feedback, and upgrading systems. Although it mentions the Director of Information Technology and his experience, the disclosure is mainly about how the cybersecurity program operates rather than about the individual’s qualifications alone.


reasoning: Although it mentions a reporting chain in the event of an incident, the paragraph is primarily a SPAC/early-stage disclosure emphasizing limited cybersecurity resources and hypothetical risk rather than describing a substantive governance structure or risk management program. The statement that no incidents have occurred since the IPO is a generic negative assertion without firm-specific cyber details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes governance and reporting structure: an internal committee discusses cybersecurity matters and the IT manager reports up to the Risk Management committee. Its focus is oversight and information flow rather than the company’s operational cybersecurity processes themselves.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the governance chain and upward reporting to the Board of Directors on cybersecurity matters, which makes it a board oversight structure disclosure. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific facts under the extraction rules, only generic governance and process descriptions.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the cybersecurity oversight structure and reporting flow from management through the Enterprise Risk Committee and Risk and Technology Committee to the Board, which makes it Board Governance. Although it includes qualifications of the CISO, those details are embedded within a broader governance-chain description rather than being the main subject.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about management preparedness and qualifications to assess cybersecurity risk, rather than describing a concrete risk management process or board oversight structure. It contains no qualifying specific facts because the CFO is a generic C-suite role, the advisory firm and service providers are unnamed, and the certifications are unspecified.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity matters, including how management roles and IT resources report upward to the CFO and Board. Although it mentions risk management and an incident response plan, the central focus is the governance chain and board-level oversight rather than the details of the internal process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that known cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected the company and are not reasonably likely to do so. The remaining language is generic forward-looking risk discussion and cross-references, not a description of governance, management roles, or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and approval structure for cybersecurity governance documents and strategy, including how the Information Security team, CISO, and Audit & Risk Committee interact. Although the CISO is mentioned, the focus is on governance flow and committee oversight rather than the CISO's qualifications or identity.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and responsibility structure—board oversight rights, delegation to the general partner and investment manager, and reliance on Blackstone for cybersecurity risk management—rather than detailing a specific cyber process or management qualifications. It contains no qualifying specific facts from the allowed list, so it remains generic in specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph’s most substantive disclosure is the company’s assessment that, to date, cybersecurity threats and attacks have not resulted in a material cybersecurity incident, which is a materiality conclusion. The rest is generic risk-warning language and a cross-reference, not a description of governance, management roles, or specific risk-management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity processes—monitoring information systems, deploying security measures, conducting audits, and maintaining an incident response plan. The CISO and CIO are mentioned, but the focus is on how the program operates rather than on their qualifications or identities.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily generic background about the importance of IT systems, the types of data the company handles, and applicable privacy laws, rather than describing cybersecurity governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, incidents, or a materiality assessment. Under the instructions, generic IT-dependence language without substantive cyber disclosure is classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily focuses on the CISO and related cyber leadership structure, including the CISO’s background, role, and supporting council, which makes Management Role the best fit. Although it mentions board oversight and some process elements, those are secondary to identifying who the cyber leaders are and what qualifications/positions they hold.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity risk management activities and control structure, including assessments, monitoring, testing, and third-party risk management. Although the VP, ISS is named, the disclosure is about how the program operates rather than the individual's qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph's main substance is a materiality assessment: it states the company is not aware of any material cybersecurity incidents and not aware of threats reasonably likely to materially affect the business. The brief reference to third-party security experts and the cross-reference to Risk Factors do not change the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary purpose is to state a materiality assessment that the company is not aware of cybersecurity threats that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the business. The rest is generic cautionary language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management roles, or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the Board has overall responsibility, the Audit Committee supports that oversight, and information flows from officers up to the committee and then to the full Board. The named officers are mentioned only as part of that governance chain, not to describe their qualifications or management roles.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain and information flow for cybersecurity matters: the CISO reports to the Risk Committee, presents testing results upward, and helps keep the Board informed and trained. Although management roles are named, the main focus is governance structure rather than the officers' qualifications or identity.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure: the Board reviews the security program and receives incident/update reporting from management. Although it mentions the COO's experience, the main purpose is explaining how cybersecurity information flows to the Board, not detailing management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight chain and upward reporting of cybersecurity information to a board-level committee, which makes it Board Governance rather than Management Role. It includes firm-specific governance facts through the CISO role and the named Risk Committee.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight and accountability structure, including how updates flow to the board and other internal governance bodies. Although it mentions operational elements, the main focus is governance-chain oversight rather than management qualifications or incident/risk process details alone.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that the company is not aware of cybersecurity threats or incidents that have materially affected its business, results, or financial condition. The rest is generic forward-looking impact language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management roles, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the board has overall responsibility, management handles assessment and monitoring, and significant incidents are escalated to the audit committee and board. Although a Vice President of Operations is mentioned, the focus is governance flow rather than that person's qualifications or identity.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and escalation structure for cybersecurity incidents, including how management teams and committees communicate with the Board. Although specific officers are named, the focus is on governance flow rather than their qualifications or identities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, including the board’s role, reliance on management, and reporting flows from security leadership to board-level committees. Although it mentions management roles, those roles are presented as part of the governance chain rather than as biographical or qualification-focused disclosures.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management structure and how the program is operated, including integration with enterprise risk management and use of supporting personnel and service providers. Although it includes qualifications of the CTO, those details support a broader description of the cybersecurity program rather than making the paragraph mainly about management biography.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: management reports to the Audit Committee, which oversees enterprise risk management and may escalate to the Board. Although a Co-President is mentioned, the purpose is to explain governance and information flow rather than that officer's qualifications or role profile.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity at the Trust through the Sponsor and the Sponsor's board, including the flow of reports from BlackRock to the board. Although it references an ERM framework, the main purpose is governance/oversight rather than detailing the risk management process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment, mitigation, and monitoring process. Although it names a responsible officer, the role is presented as part of how the process operates rather than focusing on the individual’s qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary substantive disclosure is a negative materiality assessment: the company states it has not experienced a cybersecurity incident with a material adverse impact. The rest is generic forward-looking risk language about possible future breaches, not a description of governance, management roles, or a concrete incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company’s cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes are carried out internally, including integration into overall risk management and review of security assessments. Although specific executives are mentioned, the disclosure is about the process they perform rather than their qualifications or identity as cybersecurity leaders.


reasoning: Although the paragraph begins with a role, the substance describes the company’s ongoing cybersecurity risk assessment and monitoring activities, so the process stands on its own and fits Risk Management Process. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, firms, tools, or clearly cybersecurity-specific titles from the allowed list.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a materiality assessment stating that no material cybersecurity incidents or threats have been identified and that cyber threats have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, the company. It does not describe governance, management qualifications, or specific risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board's oversight structure, including the Board's responsibility, the Audit Committee's role, and management's reporting flow on cybersecurity matters. Although it also includes substantial CIO/CISO qualification details, those appear within a broader governance-chain discussion centered on oversight.


reasoning: This is a generic risk-warning statement about possible consequences if IT systems are compromised, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, or an actual incident. It also does not provide a materiality assessment, only speculative adverse-effect language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity activities—monitoring threats, mitigating risk, enforcing policies, conducting assessments, and training employees—so the main topic is the risk management process. Although it mentions the CTO and experience, those details are incidental to explaining how the company manages cybersecurity rather than focusing on the executive’s biography.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment, monitoring, and reporting processes, with management and IT staff carrying them out. Although a third-party technology partner is mentioned, the focus is not vendor oversight requirements or personnel qualifications, but the ongoing risk management process itself.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a generic risk warning about possible cybersecurity and data privacy harms, with speculative consequences and a cross-reference to Risk Factors rather than a description of governance, management roles, or a concrete cyber risk process. It does not state a materiality assessment or describe an actual incident, so it fits None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight structure and information flow to a board committee, which makes it Board Governance rather than a management-role description. It includes firm-specific governance facts through the named IT role and the named Audit and Reserves Committee.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity oversight structure: management committees, their governance responsibilities, and how the Chief Information Security Officer reports issues up to a board committee. Although officers are named, the main purpose is the governance chain and information flow rather than individual qualifications or operational process details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity oversight and operational risk-management structure through management committees that review controls, monitor threats, and support mitigation and remediation activities. Although board representatives are mentioned, the focus is not on board oversight mechanics but on management-level processes and committees.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the cybersecurity oversight structure and reporting flow through a named governance committee and up to the board, which fits Board Governance. It is firm-specific because it identifies a named non-generic committee and cybersecurity-specific roles.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight structure and reporting lines for cybersecurity, describing how committees and the CTO oversee and escalate cyber matters rather than detailing the CTO’s qualifications or the underlying security processes. Although focused on management-side governance rather than the board itself, its main purpose is governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting chain for cybersecurity matters, explaining how information flows from IT providers to officers and then to the Board. It does not focus on the officers' qualifications or on the company's detailed cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about ongoing malicious cyber activity and potential adverse consequences, not a description of governance, management roles, a concrete risk management process, or an actual incident. Its materiality language is speculative ('could have a material adverse effect'), which does not qualify as a strategy integration assessment.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic statement that information systems are important and may be vulnerable to cyber threats. Its materiality language is only speculative ('could potentially have a material impact'), not a company assessment or description of governance, management, or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the Board oversees risk, the Audit Committee receives briefings, and management reports upward. The mentions of the CEO and CFO are part of that governance chain rather than a description of management qualifications or a distinct risk process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight information flow to the Audit Committee—how cybersecurity matters are briefed upward—so it is best classified as Board Governance. It contains only generic actors and cadence language (CEO, Audit Committee, regular/annual briefings) with no qualifying specific facts under the rubric.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an oversight/governance structure through a named committee and its membership, rather than detailing an individual's qualifications or a specific risk-management activity. The named Technology and Operations Committee and inclusion of cybersecurity-specific roles make the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal escalation and reporting process for cybersecurity risks and incidents, including how information is communicated to management. It is not focused on board oversight or on the qualifications/identity of a cybersecurity executive.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal escalation/reporting outcome—keeping senior management informed about cybersecurity posture and risks—rather than identifying specific officers or board oversight structure. It contains no named roles, committees, frameworks, dates, or other company-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's internal structure for overseeing and addressing cybersecurity risk through management committees and cross-functional escalation, which fits risk management process rather than board-level governance. It does not focus on the qualifications or background of any individual executive.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight structure: the Audit Committee oversees cybersecurity risk management and receives reports and updates from management, especially the CIO. Although it includes some qualifications about the CIO and team experience, those details are secondary to describing how cyber oversight flows to the board committee.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to a risk factor and contains only generic forward-looking risk language about potential cyber-related harms and insurance. It does not describe governance, management roles, a risk process, third-party oversight, a real incident, or a materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph's main point is a backward-looking materiality assessment and negative assertion that the company has not experienced any material cybersecurity incidents or known unauthorized access. The remaining language about continued monitoring is generic and does not change the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about governance structure: management oversees cybersecurity risk mitigation and reports incidents up to the board of directors. It does not provide person-specific qualifications or meaningful process detail, and it contains no qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s most substantive disclosure is a backward-looking statement that the company did not experience a cybersecurity incident during 2024, which is best treated as a strategy/materiality-style assessment rather than governance structure. The reference to the Board is general and does not describe a specific oversight mechanism.


reasoning: The paragraph’s leading and most decision-useful disclosure is the company’s assessment that prior cyber-attack incidents did not have a material impact on its business, results, or financial condition, which fits Strategy Integration. Although it also includes governance details about a cybersecurity committee, those appear as supporting context rather than the primary purpose of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the qualifications, training, and credentials of the company's cybersecurity personnel rather than describing a cybersecurity process or board oversight structure. Its focus is on personnel expertise, including professional certifications and industry participation, which fits Management Role best.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and escalation structure for cybersecurity incidents, including how significant incidents are communicated to the Audit Committee and how materiality determinations are made. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is explaining oversight and reporting flow rather than describing personnel qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain and information flow from the committee and management up to the full Board, which makes Board Governance the best fit. Although it also mentions management responsibility and experience, those details are secondary to the description of Board-level cybersecurity oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is a materiality assessment: the company states it did not experience a material cybersecurity incident during the stated period. The remaining language is forward-looking caution and a cross-reference, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph’s most substantive disclosure is a backward-looking materiality assessment that no cybersecurity incident has had a material adverse impact to date. The rest is largely generic risk language and cross-references to other sections rather than a description of governance, management, or specific processes.


reasoning: Although the paragraph mentions the InfoSec Director, its primary focus is on monitoring, auditing, and incident response processes rather than the person's qualifications or biography. The named cybersecurity role and the named eRISC body make the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure by which cybersecurity information flows from the CISO to the ERMC, rather than detailing the CISO’s qualifications or the company’s operational risk process itself. The presence of a cybersecurity-specific role and a named committee makes the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about possible consequences of cybersecurity incidents and evolving attack techniques, not a description of the company's governance, management roles, risk processes, vendor oversight program, or any actual incident. It contains only hypothetical, boilerplate statements with no firm-specific cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity, with the Board responsible for oversight and the Director of Information Technology providing reports upward to the Board. Although it mentions risk assessments and audits, the central purpose is the governance chain rather than the internal process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow: the CFO handles day-to-day cyber oversight and updates the Board on risk mitigation and breaches. Although a management officer is mentioned, the main point is how cyber information is overseen and communicated upward, which fits Board Governance.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment, safeguard maintenance, and monitoring process. Although it mentions an IT consultant and reporting line, those details are incidental to the process description and do not provide management qualifications or firm-specific cybersecurity roles.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity review, audit, and assessment processes, with board reporting as a downstream element rather than the main topic. Its only qualifying specific detail is use of the FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool, which makes the disclosure sector-adapted rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight structure: the full board retains cybersecurity oversight and management is expected to escalate incident details and response measures to the board. Although it also notes the absence of a formal program and includes a materiality statement, the dominant disclosure is the governance chain.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity functions—risk assessment, security controls, and incident response—rather than board oversight or the qualifications of specific individuals. The referenced information technology department is generic and does not add firm-specific detail under the stated rules.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity, including reporting from security leadership to the Management Board and a Supervisory Board committee. Although the Chief Security Officer is mentioned, the focus is on how cyber information flows upward to board-level oversight bodies rather than on the officer's qualifications or role biography.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and escalation structure for cybersecurity matters, including how a management team evaluates issues and reports material threats or incidents upward to the Risk Committee. Although it references materiality determinations, the main focus is the oversight chain rather than a materiality conclusion or broader risk process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's basic approach to managing cybersecurity risk through standard commercial software and basic security features like password protection and encryption. The mention of the CEO is incidental and does not focus on qualifications or board oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, including how information is escalated to management and the Board of Directors. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain board-level oversight and reporting flow rather than individual qualifications or the underlying risk processes.


reasoning: Although the paragraph mentions the CISO and reporting structure, its main focus is the company's internal cybersecurity functions and controls, including policy management, BC/DR program execution, training, access reviews, and monitoring. Removing the role title still leaves a coherent description of the company's cybersecurity risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, linking the ERM program to board oversight and identifying management roles within that governance chain. Although it names officers, the main purpose is to explain how responsibility and oversight are organized rather than to detail individual qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking materiality assessment stating that realized cybersecurity threats are reasonably likely to materially affect the company’s operations, strategy, results, or financial condition. It does not describe governance, management qualifications, or specific risk-management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting chain for cybersecurity risk—from management and the CISO, through risk committees, up to the full Board—so Board Governance is the best fit. It includes firm-specific governance details such as a named cybersecurity role, named committees, team composition, and a specific year.


reasoning: The paragraph is a materiality assessment stating that the company is not aware of system weaknesses or malware that would materially affect, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, operations. It does not describe governance, management roles, or a concrete risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the cybersecurity oversight structure: a named committee, its composition, and how it works with executive leadership and the Board to oversee cybersecurity and incident response. Although it mentions members’ experience, the main purpose is governance and oversight rather than profiling an individual manager’s qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal risk management structure and process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks, rather than focusing on board oversight or the qualifications of a particular officer. The named IT leadership role adds a company-specific detail, but the main topic remains the firm's risk management process.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic forward-looking risk warning about possible future cyber impacts and mainly points readers to the Risk Factors section. It does not describe governance, management roles, a risk process, third-party oversight, a real incident, or a materiality assessment conclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight structure and reporting flow to the Audit Committee, so it fits Board Governance rather than Management Role. It contains no qualifying specific facts under the stated rules because the Audit Committee is generic and the remaining descriptions are standard governance language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow between the Committee, the full Board, and management regarding cybersecurity, which makes it a board governance disclosure. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain governance and oversight rather than individual qualifications or a distinct risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph’s primary disclosure is a negative materiality assessment that the company has not experienced any material cyber breaches. The reference to periodically reviewing policies and procedures is generic process language and does not outweigh the materiality-focused statement.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal incident response structure—who composes the CIMT, what functions it performs, and how it manages and escalates cybersecurity incidents. Although it mentions updates to the Governance Committee and Board, the main focus is the incident response process rather than board oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s general approach to evaluating cybersecurity threats and maintaining cybersecurity practices, rather than board oversight, management qualifications, or any actual incident. Although it references business and financial effects, it does not make a concrete materiality assessment, so Strategy Integration is less applicable.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how Huron's cybersecurity program is organized and managed, including the committee structure, reporting line, and annual IT risk assessment process. Although it includes CIO qualifications, those details are secondary to the description of the company's internal cybersecurity risk management and oversight process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity monitoring, auditing, and incident response processes, even though the Director of Infrastructure is the grammatical subject. It does not provide person-specific qualifications or other firm-unique details, and the remaining content stands alone as a process description.


reasoning: The paragraph is a high-level risk statement noting past cyber-attacks and possible future harm, but it does not describe a specific incident, governance structure, management role, or risk management process. It also does not provide a materiality assessment, so it fits best as non-substantive generic cyber risk disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk, moving from the board and its committee to the CTO's reporting role, which makes it Board Governance. Although it includes management qualifications, those details are secondary to the governance chain and information flow upward.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about potential consequences of cyber-attacks and breaches, not a description of governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, an actual incident, or a materiality assessment. It contains no company-specific cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive disclosure is a materiality assessment that the company has not experienced cyber-attacks or malicious activities that materially disrupted its business, with an additional cross-reference to Item 1A for material effects. The remaining language is generic forward-looking risk language rather than process, governance, or incident detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk—how the Chief Operating Officer informs the Audit Committee, how updates flow upward, and how the committee reviews and guides cybersecurity matters. Although management is mentioned, the focus is on board-level oversight rather than the COO's qualifications or the company's operational cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's overall process for identifying, prioritizing, monitoring, and mitigating cybersecurity-related risks as part of enterprise risk management. Although the Board is mentioned, that reference is brief and secondary to the discussion of the company's risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure and information flow: the Board and Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity risk, with the CIO and Head of Information Security briefing the committee. It is firm-specific because it identifies cybersecurity-related roles, even though the rest of the governance language is otherwise fairly standard.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic cautionary statement about potential cybersecurity risks and a cross-reference to Risk Factors, not a description of governance, management, process, or an actual incident. Its materiality language is speculative ('if realized and material') rather than a company assessment, so it falls under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about an internal management forum used to coordinate and strategize on cybersecurity challenges, which makes it a description of the company’s risk management process rather than board oversight or an individual officer’s qualifications. It includes firm-specific facts such as a named cybersecurity committee, the CISO’s role, and a detailed cross-functional team composition.


reasoning: This paragraph is a high-level, generic statement about exposure to cybersecurity threats and possible adverse effects, without describing a specific governance structure, management role, risk process, vendor oversight program, or actual incident. Its materiality language is speculative ('could be adversely affected'), which is boilerplate risk language rather than a materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity practices and how risks are addressed through a cross-functional program, training, testing, audits, and outside assistance. Although a CISO is mentioned, the focus is on the process and operating approach rather than the individual’s qualifications or background.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management structure and processes—who establishes policies, who provides oversight, and how internal audit validates those activities. Although it mentions qualifications and an Audit Committee reporting line, the main focus is the firm's operational risk management process rather than board governance or an individual management role.