content_category: None/Other

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

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

provider: openai

stage: benchmark


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to risk factors elsewhere in the filing and does not provide substantive cybersecurity governance, process, incident, or materiality assessment disclosure. The mention of risks that may materially affect the company is not itself a conclusion, just a pointer to another section.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to Item 1A risk factors and contains generic forward-looking risk language rather than a substantive cybersecurity governance, process, incident, or materiality assessment disclosure. It points readers elsewhere instead of describing the company's own cybersecurity practices or conclusions.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: Although the paragraph is framed around the Director of Infrastructure, it primarily describes the company's cybersecurity monitoring, auditing, and incident response processes rather than the individual's qualifications or background. It contains no qualifying firm-specific facts, named frameworks, dates, tools, or other verifiable details.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to risk factors elsewhere in the filing and does not provide substantive cybersecurity governance, process, incident, or materiality disclosure in itself. The mention of risks that may materially affect the company is merely directional, not an actual assessment or description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity threats through monitoring, evaluation, and escalation procedures. Although the CFO is mentioned, the substance is about the risk management process rather than the CFO’s qualifications or role profile.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity risk: the board has overall responsibility, management handles monitoring and mitigation, and significant incidents are escalated to the audit committee and board. Although a management role is mentioned, the main purpose is explaining governance and reporting flow rather than describing that person's qualifications or role profile.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes oversight structure and information flow: management and the CFO oversee the program, significant incidents are reported to the board, and the Audit Committee receives updates. Although it also includes a no-material-incidents statement and a risk-factor cross-reference, those are secondary to the governance description.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and incident response/risk management activities, not the qualifications or background of a specific individual. Although a role is mentioned, the substance is about how the company protects systems and responds to incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board oversight structure and escalation path for cybersecurity matters, including updates to the full board and audit committee and the COO's role in informing the committee of material threats and incidents. Its focus is governance and reporting flow rather than management qualifications or internal risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity activities and responsibilities—such as setting objectives, allocating resources, risk assessment, controls, incident response, and compliance—rather than identifying specific managers or describing board oversight structure. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named roles, frameworks, committees, dates, tools, or firms.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic risk warning about possible cybersecurity threats and potential adverse effects, including effects from service providers. It does not describe governance, management roles, a risk management process, third-party oversight practices, or any actual incident, and its materiality language is speculative rather than an assessment.


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 elements of the risk program, the main purpose is explaining governance and information flow rather than detailing a distinct process or specific management qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company's internal structure for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risk, which aligns best with risk management process rather than board oversight or management qualifications. The named Enterprise Risk Management Committee makes the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a generic risk-factor style warning about potential cybersecurity and privacy risks, with a cross-reference to Item 1A, rather than a substantive description of governance, management roles, or a concrete risk-management process. Its materiality language is speculative ('could have a material adverse effect'), which does not qualify as a strategy/materiality assessment under the rules.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic description of cybersecurity threats and possible consequences, without describing AFG's governance, management roles, risk management processes, vendor oversight, or any actual incident. Its references to 'material risks' and potential expenses are boilerplate risk language rather than a materiality assessment or substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow from management to a board committee regarding cybersecurity, which fits Board Governance. It includes firm-specific governance facts through a cybersecurity-relevant role and a non-generic named committee.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a generic cautionary statement about the limits of cybersecurity and a cross-reference to risk factors, rather than a substantive description of governance, management roles, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or a materiality assessment. It contains no qualifying company-specific cyber facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and reporting flow to the Audit Committee, which makes it a board-governance disclosure rather than a management-biography or process paragraph. It contains no qualifying specific facts because Audit Committee, periodic reporting, and generic IT references are not counted as firm-specific under the rubric.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the oversight structure and information flow from management to a board-level committee, which makes it Board Governance. It includes firm-specific governance details through the cybersecurity-specific role (CISO) and the named Risk Committee.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure and information flow for cybersecurity: the Audit Committee directs monitoring, the CIO reports to the Audit Committee, and the Audit Committee reports to the Board. Although it mentions the CIO's expertise, that detail is incidental to the broader governance-chain description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and escalation structure for cybersecurity matters, including how information flows from the CISO and internal teams up to the audit committee or Board. Although it discusses program activities, the reporting chain and governance structure are the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about oversight and information flow to a committee—how the ERMC is kept informed and monitors cybersecurity matters—rather than describing the CISO's qualifications or the company’s operational cyber processes. The presence of the CISO and the named ERMC makes the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity, including management committees, their oversight responsibilities, and reporting from the CISO up to a board committee. Its named committees and cybersecurity-specific roles make it firm-specific, but it lacks two or more hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, operating structure, training, and security controls, rather than focusing on executives' qualifications or board oversight. Although the CIO and CISO are named, they are presented as part of how the cybersecurity risk management process is organized and executed.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management structure and activities: incident-response support, risk reduction, escalation/materiality processes, a GRC platform, and use of external assessors. Although it includes role and experience details, those people are described in service of explaining how the cybersecurity program operates rather than focusing mainly on their biographies.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to Item 1A risk factors and contains generic speculative risk language about possible adverse effects, not a substantive cybersecurity governance, process, incident, or materiality assessment disclosure.