content_category: Board Governance

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and management reporting to the board, so Board Governance is the best fit. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named committees, cybersecurity-specific roles, dates, frameworks, or named tools, so it is generic boilerplate.

provider: openai


content_category: Risk Management Process

specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s internal cybersecurity controls and mitigation processes—back-up systems, monitoring, detection, anti-malware, training, audits, and reporting structures. The Head of IT is mentioned, but only as part of that process description rather than as the central subject, and there are no qualifying specific facts under the codebook’s specificity rules.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the company's internal incident response and escalation process, including how its teams detect, coordinate, and address cybersecurity incidents. It does not describe a real incident or board/management oversight, but it does name internal teams (CIRT and the Cyber Security Watch Team), making it firm-specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is about the company’s own enterprise risk management process for identifying, assessing, and reporting cybersecurity risk, including policies, roles, oversight, and training. It does not describe a board oversight disclosure, a management-role disclosure, or any incident, and it contains no qualifying firm-specific facts under the codebook.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Cheniere's internal cybersecurity risk management activities: assessments, audits, risk mitigation exercises, third-party testing, and training. It does not make the board or management the grammatical subject, and it lacks any qualifying specific facts under the codebook because the Cyber Incident Response Plan is mentioned generically without a unique identifier.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CIO’s responsibilities, experience, and reporting lines, so Management Role is the best fit. It also contains multiple hard numbers (four years, over 13 years, over 40 years), which makes the disclosure Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on a specific management role and its qualifications/responsibilities, so Management Role is the best fit. It also includes two hard, independently verifiable tenure facts (35 years of experience and 24 years in role), which makes the specificity Quantified-Verifiable.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the company’s vendor qualification and due-diligence process, so Third-Party Risk is the best fit. I agree with Annotators A and C on the category, but not on any added specificity: terms like pre-engagement process, Risk Dependency Assessment, Tier Level, and Critical Vendors are generic process language and do not qualify as firm-specific facts under the codebook.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the Board’s Audit and Risk Committee and its oversight of cybersecurity risk, so Board Governance is the best fit. The named committee makes it firm-specific, even though the rest of the language is standard governance disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Garmin's own cybersecurity risk management program and internal processes, not board oversight, management roles, or an incident. It is more than sector-adapted because it includes a company-specific organizational integration with product development and technology management teams.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The grammatical subject is management, and the paragraph is about management’s reporting line to the Audit Committee and executives regarding cybersecurity incidents, which fits Management Role more closely than Board Governance. It contains no qualifying specific facts because “Audit Committee,” “management,” “executives,” and “material cybersecurity incidents” are all generic boilerplate terms.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company’s internal cybersecurity measures and its dependence on information technology systems, which fits Risk Management Process more than governance or incident disclosure. It contains only broad, non-specific language and no qualifying facts such as named roles, committees, standards, dates, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk identification, monitoring, mitigation, and program maintenance processes, which is squarely Risk Management Process. It does not name any specific role, framework, date, committee, or other firm-specific detail, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The primary subject is the Board of Directors and audit committee overseeing the cybersecurity program and receiving reports, which makes this a Board Governance disclosure. The mention of the ISO and CISO is enough to make it firm-specific, but there are no hard verifiable facts that would elevate it to quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CIO and CISO, including their responsibilities and qualifications, so Management Role is the best fit even though it also mentions the security program. It is Quantified-Verifiable because it includes multiple hard facts, including the CISO's 38 years of experience and the 24/7 Security Operations Center.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the VP of IT’s cybersecurity responsibilities and qualifications, so Management Role is the best fit. It is Firm-Specific because it names a cybersecurity-specific executive title and includes a concrete experience figure, but it does not provide two hard verifiable facts needed for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about oversight of cybersecurity risks from third-party service providers and vendors, including due diligence, monitoring, and recertification, so 'Third-Party Risk' is the best category. However, the program name and process terms are generic and do not include any qualifying firm-specific facts, named standards, dates, tools, or third-party firms, so the specificity is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company’s cybersecurity risk management program is implemented through its manager and an IT service provider, with vendor involvement as a component rather than the central subject. It is Firm-Specific because it states that the company has no employees, which is a verifiable company-specific fact, though the rest is largely generic or standard-framework language.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CDIO’s identity, responsibilities, prior position, and experience, so it fits Management Role. It includes company-specific role and timing details, but only one clearly hard verifiable fact (the January 2022 role change), so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The grammatical subject is senior management, and the paragraph describes management’s responsibility for developing and recommending cybersecurity risk appetite metrics. It contains no qualifying firm-specific facts, named roles, dates, frameworks, or tools, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main thrust is the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management process: ERM integration, vulnerability testing, and internal review procedures. Although the Audit Committee and Board are mentioned, they are part of the process description rather than the primary subject; the CTO reference is the only qualifying specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the company’s cybersecurity risk assessment process, including how IT systems are stratified and evaluated for protection against cyber threats. The third-party assessor and the IT Manager/CFO mention are ancillary; the only notable specificity is the named MLPS framework, which makes this sector-adapted rather than purely generic.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company’s internal cybersecurity framework, risk-management activities, and employee training, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. It does not include any qualifying firm-specific facts under the codebook—“IT Team,” “Software Engineer,” and general training/process language are too generic—so the paragraph is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is mainly about the company’s own cybersecurity posture and internal response process: lack of internal personnel/processes, reliance on third parties, and a management incident-response plan. It does not describe a real incident, governance-led oversight, or any named framework, date, role, committee, or other firm-specific detail, so it is generic boilerplate.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph’s substantive point is that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the company to date, which fits Strategy Integration because it is a materiality/business-impact statement rather than governance or process disclosure. It does not describe any конкретe incident, named system, date, or other firm-specific fact, so the text is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, so Board Governance is the best fit. After filtering out generic references to the Board, Audit Committee, and routine reporting cadences, there are no qualifying company-specific facts under the codebook.


reasoning: The paragraph mainly describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk mitigation processes—monitoring, detection, anti-malware, training, audits, and response—so Risk Management Process is the best fit. The Head of IT reporting line is mentioned, but it is secondary to the process description and does not introduce a qualifying specific fact under the codebook.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the company’s internal cybersecurity program and risk-management practices, including assessments, penetration testing, vulnerability scanning, and use of the NIST framework. The Harley-Davidson reference is a specific firm-level detail, but it is incidental to the broader internal-process discussion, so Risk Management Process is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the qualifications of named cybersecurity management roles—the CIO and VP of Information Security—so Management Role is the best fit. It also includes multiple hard facts (two experience figures plus CISSP), which makes the disclosure Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Liberty Broadband’s own cybersecurity risk assessment and management process under a services agreement, so the central topic is internal risk management rather than vendor oversight. It contains no qualifying specific facts from the codebook; Liberty and GCI are related-entity references, not the kinds of named entities that make the disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is about the company’s own cybersecurity safeguards and recovery processes, including firewalls, antivirus/patching, internal cloud hosting, and backup tape handling, so it fits Risk Management Process. However, it contains no qualifying specific facts from the codebook (no named roles, committees, frameworks, products, firms, dates, or hard numbers), so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal handling and protection of sensitive data and IT systems as part of its own operations, which fits Risk Management Process rather than governance, incidents, or third-party oversight. It contains no qualifying specific facts such as named roles, committees, dates, programs, standards, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CEO’s responsibility for briefing the Audit Committee, so the management role is the main subject even though board oversight is mentioned. It contains only generic governance language and cadence, with no qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own cybersecurity approach and monitoring processes, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. The only qualifying specific fact is the consultant's over-30-years of experience; that is enough to move it beyond generic boilerplate, but it does not provide a second hard fact for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is mainly about the company’s internal enterprise risk management process and how cybersecurity is incorporated into that process, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. The reference to the enterprise risk management committee is a specific committee identifier, making the disclosure Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity and incident response process, including the composition of the response team. The CEO reference is generic and does not, by itself, make this a Management Role disclosure under the codebook.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on ProAssurance’s own cybersecurity controls and monitoring processes—system monitoring, security enhancements, encryption, access controls, training, phishing tests, and AI-use guidelines—which fits Risk Management Process. It does not include any qualifying specific facts from the codebook such as named roles, committees, dates, vendors, tools, standards, or quantified details, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management approach and its integration into a broader risk management framework, which fits Risk Management Process. Board oversight is mentioned only as a secondary clause, and the passage contains no qualifying specific facts, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking discussion of the potential business and financial consequences of a cyberattack, centered on material adverse impact to financial condition rather than governance, process, or a real incident. It contains no qualifying specific facts, names, dates, or standards, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about Centuri’s internal cybersecurity risk management activities: reviews, policies, procedures, risk assessments, a risk register, and third-party evaluations. The only codebook-qualifying specificity is the named NIST Cybersecurity Framework, which makes the paragraph sector-adapted rather than firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the company’s own cybersecurity controls, monitoring, and vulnerability management, so it fits Risk Management Process. It is Firm-Specific because it identifies the internal personnel groups responsible for executing the program, but it does not include enough hard verifiable facts to be Quantified-Verifiable.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: This is a generic forward-looking risk statement about how a cyber-attack could disrupt operations, sales, production, and cash flows. It does not describe an actual incident, a concrete cybersecurity process, or any firm-specific governance or technical detail.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on cybersecurity risk materiality and potential business/financial impact, including a statement that prior incidents have not materially affected the company. It does mention the company’s cybersecurity risk management program, but only in a generic, non-specific way and without any unique process details, so the best fit is Strategy Integration rather than Risk Management Process.


reasoning: Although the paragraph opens by naming specific cybersecurity-related roles, the substantive focus is on how the company identifies, assesses, and manages cybersecurity threats through monitoring, scans, assessments, and exercises. That makes it primarily a Risk Management Process disclosure rather than a pure management-role paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about the Board and Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risk and receiving updates from management, so Board Governance is the best fit. After filtering out generic references like the Audit Committee, management, and a standard incident response plan, no qualifying specific facts remain.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company’s own cybersecurity risk management program and the processes it uses to identify, assess, manage, and mitigate threats, so it fits Risk Management Process. It is firm-specific because it identifies the internal team composition overseeing the program, even though the rest of the language is fairly generic.


reasoning: The core disclosure is about imposing security and breach-notification requirements on third-party service providers, which makes vendor oversight the central topic. The board and Audit Committee reference is brief and generic, so it does not change the category.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main point is the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management program, including implementation, monitoring, and incident response/recovery processes, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. It includes firm-specific named governance bodies, but those appear as part of the process description rather than making management-role oversight the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph is mainly about the company's internal cybersecurity program, monitoring, and remediation processes, so Risk Management Process is the best fit. The VP of Information Technology role and the stated 25+ years of experience make the disclosure firm-specific, but the paragraph does not contain two hard verifiable facts for a quantified-verifiable rating.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company’s internal process for evaluating whether cybersecurity risks materially affect business strategy, operations, or financial condition, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains only generic references to the Board, management, and a cross-reference to Item 1A, with no company-specific facts or named frameworks.