reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident including unauthorized access to specific customer personal information (names, DOB, SSN/TIN), third-party response actions (investigation, experts, law enforcement notification), scope limited to provider's environment, and no misuse evidence, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure over Strategy Integration due to incident narrative primacy. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, named firms/tools) or firm-specific elements (roles, committees, dates, named programs) per criteria, matching Generic Boilerplate like unnamed third-party expert engagements.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: This paragraph details the scope and content of data involved in a cybersecurity incident, including specific types of records and affected customer segments unique to AT&T, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains firm-specific facts about AT&T's wireless and wireline customers and network but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts like dates or named external firms/tools, making it Firm-Specific.

provider: x-ai


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized access by a threat actor, exfiltration of limited data, temporary operational impacts at facilities, and response actions like investigation and notifications, fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific dates, named entities, quantified metrics, roles, or unique firm facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate per decision test.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a narrative of an actual cybersecurity incident, including the threat actor's exfiltration of client files containing personal information, scope of impact, engagement of experts, ongoing analysis, client notifications, and confirmation that data has not been publicly released, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria. No firm-specific facts such as dates, named roles, committees, quantified metrics, named firms, or systems are present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with detection date, unauthorized access details, response actions (investigation, incident response plan activation, system shutdowns), data theft, and operational impacts, directly matching 'Incident Disclosure'. It includes one hard verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (needs two+).


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: Paragraph focuses on financial impact assessment and cost estimates for a referenced incident without any narrative of what happened, scope, or response actions, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial cost/impact without incident description. Contains one quantified dollar range, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (requires two or more hard facts).


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including what happened (outage caused by attack, access, encryption, exfiltration), timing, response actions (remediation, third-party vendors), and operational impacts (products, back-office functions), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date) making it Firm-Specific, not reaching Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident with date of discovery, affected systems (Targus file systems), threat actor access, response actions, and operational impact, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. Contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date) and a named subsidiary, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (needs two hard facts).


reasoning: This paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident including the date of notification, access start date, threat actor identity, affected systems (email environment), scope (mailboxes in named functions), and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. Multiple verifiable facts like two specific dates and named threat actors exceed the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with narrative of what happened (former executive deactivated website renewal), specific dates of detection and restoration, affected systems (website, email, IT), and response actions, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. It includes two specific dates (July 25 and 29, 2024) as hard verifiable facts, meeting Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: This paragraph details the scope, operational impacts (website offline, delayed communications), and ongoing response to a specific cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized action by a former executive officer, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria including affected systems and lack of material impact on data/IP. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, named firms/tools) or firm-specific elements from the IS list (e.g., named roles, dates, programs) are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the material impact of a cybersecurity incident on business operations and financial condition, concluding no material financial impact, and discusses insurance coverage, which fits Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident narrative. No specific facts such as dates, amounts, named entities, or frameworks are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with detection date, response actions (investigation, incident response plan activation, system shutdown), ejection date, and law enforcement notification, fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Two specific dates (Dec 13 and 15, 2023) provide verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial impacts (insurance recoveries, no material effect on financial condition/results of operations) and a materiality conclusion for a referenced incident without any narrative of what happened, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No named frameworks, roles, dates, amounts, or other verifiable facts present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the scope of operational impact from a specific cybersecurity incident, response actions (restored, contained, remediated), and financial costs, fitting Incident Disclosure per guidelines and tiebreaker for incident narrative + financial impact. Contains multiple hard verifiable facts (two specific dates and a dollar amount), exceeding the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial and operational impact (slower vehicle sales) and materiality assessment of the Incident for the Q2 fiscal quarter without describing what happened in the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments lacking incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion and financial impact assessment for an incident without any incident narrative or description of what happened, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains three specific dates, exceeding the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific ransomware incident including dates, origin (third-party firewall vulnerability), scope (internal IT systems), and response actions (engaged experts, recovery, improvements), fitting Incident Disclosure. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident at CDK Global, including what happened (disruptions to Company systems), timeline (June 19, 2024, restored as of filing, disruptions in July), scope (DMS, CRM, apps), and operational impacts, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. Multiple hard verifiable facts (date, named firm, named systems) exceed the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial and operational impacts, expected costs, insurance offset, and materiality assessments related to an incident without providing any narrative, timeline, or details of what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact without incident description. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational disruptions (e.g., interrupted inventory replenishment, delayed order fulfillment, customer order cancellations, reduced e-commerce demand, delayed wholesale shipments), response actions (system shutdown, resumption of operations, restoration of IT systems), and ongoing minor impacts from a specific cyber incident, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria including scope and response for a real event. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, percentages, named firms/tools), cybersecurity-specific roles, committees, named frameworks, or other firm-specific elements from the IS list are present; descriptions use vague quantifiers like 'certain,' 'some,' and generic operations common to retailers, resulting in Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details a specific cybersecurity incident at CDK Global affecting the company's systems, including dates, scope of affected systems (DMS, CRM), and current restoration status, fitting Incident Disclosure. Multiple verifiable facts (two dates, named firm, named systems) exceed the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph details a financial covenant waiver providing $3.7M liquidity specifically for cybersecurity incident remediation and operations, emphasizing business/financial impact without any incident narrative, response actions, or scope details, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts including named firms (BH Finance LLC, BH Media Group), specific dates (January 29, 2020; March 16, 2020; March 2025), and a dollar amount ($3.7M), qualifying as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including detection date, response actions (incident response protocols, network isolation), business impact (disruption to processes but operations continued materially), ongoing investigation, and notifications, fitting Incident Disclosure. It has one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with date of detection, unauthorized access details, response actions (containment, investigation, incident response plan activation), and specific operational impacts (manufacturing shutdown, retail/e-commerce affected), clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. It includes one hard verifiable fact (specific date) and firm-specific operational details, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (lacks second hard fact like named firm or dollar amount).


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with detection date, unauthorized access details, and response actions including investigation, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria. It includes two verifiable specific dates (June 30, 2024 and July 5, 2024), meeting Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized access to IT systems, detection, response measures like activating the incident response plan, engaging external experts, notifying law enforcement, and temporarily halting production operations, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria with narrative and response actions. No specific dates, named firms, tools, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable metrics are present, aligning with Generic Boilerplate per decision test and calibration examples.


reasoning: Paragraph details operational impacts, response actions (halting operations, remediation, deploying new infrastructure, engaging experts), and restoration timeline of a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. Contains firm-specific details like operation locations and approximate timelines/dates but lacks two hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with details on what happened (unauthorized access and deployment of encryption/monitoring software), when (specific date), scope (portions of IT systems and business applications), and response actions (incident response activation, law enforcement notification, external experts, systems taken offline), clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. It includes one hard verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific with no additional verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident including the nature of the access by a cybercrime organization, scope of exfiltrated data (limited customer and employee PII from retail business environment), and response actions (investigation with external experts, notifications to affected parties, regulators, and law enforcement), directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing investigation, response actions (reporting to law enforcement and regulators), scope (no evidence of customer data access), and current impact assessment of a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific dates, named entities, roles, frameworks, or quantifiable metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any similar filing.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including detection date, scope (Canadian operations), response actions (isolation, engagement of professionals), and operational impacts (service delays), fitting Incident Disclosure. It has one hard verifiable fact (specific date) and firm-specific details like 'Canadian operations,' making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (lacks a second hard fact).


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cyberattack on Change Healthcare services, including targeted areas (pharmacy, claims, payments), response actions (mitigation, restoration, investigation with law enforcement), and scope (specific to Change Healthcare, other systems operational), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains firm-specific facts like the named Change Healthcare system but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts (e.g., no dates or dollar amounts), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident with date detected, response actions (activated procedure, engaged experts, notified law enforcement), and scope/impact on systems, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria including narrative and affected systems.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph identifies the CTO, describes their qualifications and responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management, and outlines reporting to the General Counsel, making 'Management Role' the clear fit as management roles are the grammatical subject.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to risk factors in another section with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, directly matching the 'None/Other' category for cross-references and non-substantive content.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks, including delegation to the audit committee for review and reporting, which directly matches Board Governance criteria where the board or committee is the grammatical subject. It lacks any named cybersecurity-specific roles, dates, frameworks, or other firm-specific facts, qualifying as Generic Boilerplate.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal enterprise risk management processes, including biannual reviews of cybersecurity risks with involvement from specific roles like CISO and CIO, and deployment of mitigation plans, fitting Risk Management Process as the primary topic. Board review is mentioned briefly at the end but is not the focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal activities for managing cybersecurity risks through monitoring data protection laws and implementing process changes, which fits Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own processes. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, or verifiable details are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director), their qualifications, experience, and the supporting Cybersecurity Team, making 'Management Role' the clear fit. It contains multiple firm-specific facts like named roles and team, but no two hard verifiable facts (e.g., dates, dollars, named external firms), so Firm-Specific.


reasoning: Paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion that no prior cybersecurity incidents have materially impacted the company and acknowledges potential future risks, with a cross-reference to Risk Factors, fitting Strategy Integration. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable facts present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the specific responsibilities of Mr. Gharib, a named individual in a cybersecurity management role, making 'Management Role' the clear fit as the grammatical subject is this person's duties. It contains one firm-specific fact (named individual in security context), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to lacking two hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, managing, and escalating cybersecurity threats and incidents, including controls for classification and reporting, which fits Risk Management Process. No specific facts, roles, frameworks, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Audit Committee's primary responsibility for Board oversight of cybersecurity risks and how it receives regular updates from senior IT leadership, fitting Board Governance as the board committee is the grammatical subject. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, dates, roles like CISO, or verifiable metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph details financial and operational impacts (delayed revenue recognition, lost revenue, one-time expenses) from 'the incident' without describing what happened or the incident's nature/scope, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident narrative. Two specific fiscal quarters qualify as hard verifiable date facts, meeting the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, organization (CDRM), leadership (Global CISO), and use of frameworks like NIST for risk identification, assessment, and mitigation, which fits Risk Management Process as the company's own processes are the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board of Directors' and Enterprise Risk Management Committee's oversight, training, reviews, approvals, and reporting on cybersecurity, making Board Governance the clear fit as the board/committee is the grammatical subject.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the chief financial officer's primary responsibility for cybersecurity risks, including monitoring and reporting, with brief mention of updates to a committee, making management role the main focus per tiebreakers. The named 'Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee' is a firm-specific fact, qualifying as Firm-Specific with no frameworks or two+ verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph states there have been no material cybersecurity incidents or expenses in the last two fiscal years, with no penalties or settlements, representing a standalone materiality conclusion without any incident narrative or description of events, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph provides materiality conclusions about no material impact from cyber risks or past incidents, and mentions a strategy update, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for standalone materiality and brief past incident mentions without narrative. No specific facts like dates, roles, frameworks, or metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's own internal cybersecurity program integration into enterprise risk management, business continuity, and other processes, centrally describing Risk Management Process; third-party risk is mentioned only as one component. No named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or unique firm-specific facts are present, rendering it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity training, employee testing, penetration testing, and assessments to manage risks, fitting 'Risk Management Process' as the company's own processes are the central topic. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including ERM integration and collaboration between specific teams and the CSO to evaluate and address cybersecurity risks. This fits Risk Management Process as the company's own processes are the central topic, with no board, incident, or third-party focus.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's own internal processes for threat and vulnerability assessments, risk prioritization, and mitigation strategies including incident response plans, fitting Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or other firm-specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response policies, escalation procedures, and specific teams/committees involved in handling cybersecurity incidents, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on IR planning and the company's own processes. Named internal teams and committees like Incident Management Team, disclosure committee, and Privacy and Security Subcommittee provide firm-specific details without hard verifiable facts like dates or dollar amounts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying the CISO and CTO, their qualifications, tenure, and experience, with these management roles as the grammatical subjects, fitting 'Management Role'. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts including two specific dates (2013, 2020), a named firm (Carnegie Mellon), frameworks (CISM, CISSP), and quantified experience years, exceeding the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's use of external experts for audits, threat assessments, and testing as part of its internal cybersecurity risk management processes, making 'Risk Management Process' the best fit; third-party engagement is a component of internal processes, not centrally about vendor oversight.


reasoning: Paragraph assesses potential materiality of cybersecurity risks, mentions resource expenditure including cyber insurance without specifics, and notes no material past incidents, aligning with Strategy Integration for standalone materiality conclusions and cyber insurance references absent incident narrative.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's own cybersecurity risk management activities, such as Security Committee meetings, employee training, and security policies, aligning with 'Risk Management Process' as the central topic of internal processes. It includes firm-specific facts like a named cybersecurity role, named committee, and quantified policies, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts for higher specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the AGM board of directors' oversight of the risk management program including cybersecurity, fitting Board Governance as the board is the grammatical subject; mentions of ERM integration and frameworks support this but do not shift the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's reporting to the Board and the Board's oversight through briefings and presentations from cybersecurity officers, with the board and committee as the primary grammatical subjects. Cybersecurity-specific roles (CIO, CISO, CIRO) qualify as firm-specific facts, but no hard verifiable facts (e.g., dates, dollars) reach the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph delivers a standalone materiality conclusion stating no cybersecurity threats in 2023 materially affected or are likely to affect business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, with no incident narrative, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains one firm-specific fact (the year 2023), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to lacking a second hard verifiable fact.


reasoning: This paragraph states no material cybersecurity incidents or expenses occurred in the last three fiscal years, including no penalties or settlements, which is a standalone materiality assessment fitting Strategy Integration. It lacks any incident narrative or description of specific events and includes a cross-reference, but the core content is materiality-focused.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's ongoing identification and management of cybersecurity risks through established processes, which aligns with 'Risk Management Process' as it focuses on their own internal risk assessment and management. It lacks any named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or other specific facts, qualifying as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies Jack Wang and his qualifications, responsibilities, and reporting lines for cybersecurity risks, with the board mentioned only briefly, making management roles the main focus per tiebreakers. It contains firm-specific facts like the named individual, subsidiary, and quantified experience duration, but lacks two or more hard verifiable facts (no dates, dollars, headcounts/%, external firms/tools) for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board assigning the Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risk management, reviews, and incident reporting cadence, making the board/committee the grammatical subject fitting Board Governance. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, or verifiable details present, confirming Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own incident response plan and its internal processes for handling cybersecurity incidents, including coordination with third-party providers as a component, which fits Risk Management Process. No actual incident, board, management roles, or vendor oversight as central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying risks, cross-functional stakeholder meetings, threat mitigation strategies, and incident escalation procedures, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the identification, reporting lines, and responsibilities of the CISO and CTO, making management roles the grammatical subjects and central topic. No board oversight or internal processes are the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board establishing a Cybersecurity Committee for oversight of cybersecurity risks and highlights the chair's specific expertise, making Board Governance the clear category as the board/committee is the grammatical subject. It contains firm-specific elements like the named committee, establishment date, and named certification institution, but fewer than two hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, providing no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, which fits 'None/Other' per guidelines.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal audit program, including annual risk assessments that evaluate cybersecurity risks and report to business leaders for prioritization, aligning with the company's own risk management processes. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable elements are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion stating no material impacts from past cybersecurity threats or incidents in the fiscal year, with forward-looking risks referenced, fitting Strategy Integration. No incident narrative or other processes are described as the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal processes for vulnerability assessment through third-party ethical hacks, penetration tests, and program reviews to improve controls, fitting Risk Management Process. Third-party engagement is a component of their own cybersecurity practices, not centrally focused on vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's engagements with external firms to support its own monitoring, incident response, detection, forensics, and crisis simulation exercises, which are components of its internal risk management processes rather than vendor oversight. 'Fiscal 2024' provides one firm-specific date, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not reaching Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses general cybersecurity threats common to fintech and others, with boilerplate language on potential material impacts and resource expenditure, lacking any substantive disclosure on specific categories like governance, processes, or incidents.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph centrally focuses on assessing, selecting, overseeing, and managing risks from third-party vendors, suppliers, and service providers, which matches Third-Party Risk; it is not merely a component of broader internal processes. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph addresses potential material adverse effects from cybersecurity incidents and cyber insurance coverage, aligning with Strategy Integration (financial impact and insurance); it is forward-looking boilerplate with a cross-reference, containing no substantive or specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, which include assessing risks from third-party service providers as a component, fitting Risk Management Process per tiebreakers (vendors as one component of internal processes). No firm-specific details, named frameworks, or verifiable facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the audit committee, including its responsibilities for reviewing programs and receiving quarterly reports, making the board/committee the grammatical subject. Management is mentioned briefly but not as the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program integrated into its Enterprise Risk Management process, focusing on identifying, managing, and assessing risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No firm-specific details, named frameworks, roles, or verifiable facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight of cybersecurity risks, delegation to the Audit Committee, and the committee's review of policies and member experience, fitting Board Governance as the board/committee is the grammatical subject. It contains no specific facts like named roles, dates, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors and Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, including update cadences, fitting Board Governance as the board/committee is the grammatical subject. No specific facts like named roles, dates, frameworks, or metrics are present; Audit Committee and generic terms like 'periodic' and 'annual' are standard and not firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the qualifications, tenure, and cybersecurity expertise of specific management roles (VP of Information Systems and CFO), making 'Management Role' the clear fit as these roles are the grammatical subjects. No board oversight, processes, incidents, or other categories apply.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including a risk-based approach to assessing, identifying, and managing risks, and their integration into the overall risk management strategy, with board oversight mentioned only briefly as introductory context.


reasoning: Paragraph details the company's own internal cybersecurity processes including monitoring tools, tabletop exercises, penetration testing, training, and phishing tests consistent with named but generic policies, fitting Risk Management Process; third-party involvement is a minor component. No named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, external firms, or unique firm-specific facts; all elements are common generic practices.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the IT department under the CFO as responsible for cybersecurity risk assessment and management, including their qualifications and reporting to the Audit Committee, making management roles the grammatical subject and main topic per category guidelines and tiebreakers. The quantified experience metric (over 70 years) is a firm-specific fact, with no frameworks named and fewer than two hard verifiable facts for higher specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's own internal technical, physical, and organizational measures for managing cybersecurity risks, such as incident response plans, risk assessments, monitoring, and training, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It lists only generic security practices with no named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or unique firm-specific details, qualifying as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's implementation of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and adoption of internal policies to align with regulatory requirements, which directly matches Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own framework adoption and internal processes. It names a recognized framework (NIST) but lacks any firm-specific facts like roles, dates, or unique programs, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for monitoring systems, assessing incidents, and following escalation procedures in the incident response plan, which aligns with Risk Management Process; mentions of management, Committee, and Board are secondary to these processes.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal vulnerability assessment program, risk management framework, and ongoing vulnerability evaluation processes, which directly align with 'Risk Management Process' as it focuses on the company's own risk assessment and vulnerability management practices without referencing board, management roles, incidents, or third parties centrally.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily focuses on management responsibilities for cybersecurity, specifically identifying the Vice President of Operations as directing programs and monitoring incidents, with reporting lines to the audit committee and board; board oversight is mentioned but secondary per tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Director of Cybersecurity's responsibilities, qualifications, and reporting lines to the Head of IT and executive committee, making 'Management Role' the clear fit as management roles are the grammatical subject. No board oversight or internal processes are central.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's own internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks, including vulnerability management, incident response, monitoring, and vendor risk as a component, which fits Risk Management Process. It lists only generic security practices with no named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or unique firm-specific facts, resulting in Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including the date it was detected, what happened (unauthorized access and data encryption), and immediate response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal processes for cybersecurity incident detection, severity assessment via a matrix, notification, escalation, triage, and response matching, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own monitoring and IR planning without referencing boards, management roles, vendors, incidents, or strategy.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident including unauthorized activity, detection, containment steps, system isolation on a specific date, and engagement with experts/law enforcement, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. Contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the material operational impact of an ongoing cybersecurity incident and uncertainty regarding financial impacts, without any incident narrative, scope, or response details, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial/impact assessments without describing what happened. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details the detection of unauthorized access on a specific date and the company's response actions, directly matching 'Incident Disclosure' criteria for a real event narrative and response. It includes one verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to lacking a second hard fact.


reasoning: This paragraph describes investigation findings and ongoing response to a specific cybersecurity incident, including lack of evidence for certain impacts and scope assessment, fitting Incident Disclosure. No firm-specific facts, dates, names, or frameworks are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes post-incident actions like notifying law enforcement and assessing regulatory obligations, but the main focus is the materiality conclusion regarding no material impact on operations or financial condition, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident narrative.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the operational scope, impacts, recovery status as of a specific date, and financial impact (5% revenue) of a real cybersecurity incident, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria including narrative and effects.


reasoning: Paragraph details internal processes including business continuity, contingency, disaster recovery plans, and annual testing via tabletop exercises for cybersecurity incident response readiness, aligning with Risk Management Process for IR planning. Cyber insurance is mentioned but as a supporting element within overall risk mitigation, not the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion stating no material past impacts or reasonably likely future effects from cybersecurity threats, with no incident narrative, fitting Strategy Integration; the brief generic mention of processes for third-party providers is incidental and overridden by the tiebreaker for materiality assessments.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including the threat actor's actions (access and exfiltration of limited data including some PII) and response (notifications to affected parties and regulators), fitting Incident Disclosure. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, named firms/tools) or firm-specific elements (roles, committees, named programs) are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph details response actions (contain/remediate), scope of non-compromise (IT systems/networks unaffected, no unauthorized transactions/money transfers), and operational continuity (Bank members continued transactions), all tied to a specific incident, matching Incident Disclosure. No named entities, dates, metrics, roles, frameworks, or unique firm facts; standard incident language makes it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer with no reference to cybersecurity or any substantive disclosure, directly matching the 'None/Other' category description.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the material financial impact of a past cybersecurity incident on Q2 earnings and operations, providing specific EPS figures and a materiality conclusion without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It includes three hard verifiable facts (specific quarter-end date and two dollar amounts), exceeding the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including detection date, response actions (incident response protocols, investigation, engaging a firm, notifications), and containment, fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly with no financial or materiality focus. It has one hard verifiable fact (specific date) and a named internal entity, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (lacks a second hard fact like a named external firm).


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including timeline (May/June 2023), scope (limited SharePoint files), and response actions (investigation, containment, remediation), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (two specific dates and a named system), qualifying as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident with date of awareness, threat actor access, data encryption, and immediate response actions including investigation and system restrictions, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, including detection of unauthorized activity on IT systems and specific response actions like isolation on a dated event, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality conclusion regarding the incident's lack of impact on operations and financial condition without any narrative description of what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident details.


reasoning: This paragraph details the scope of an actual cybersecurity incident, including data exfiltration, review process, and confirmation of PII/PHI from a specific subsidiary, fitting Incident Disclosure as it describes what happened and affected data without financial impact or processes as the main focus.


reasoning: This paragraph states a materiality conclusion for a cybersecurity incident without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for brief incident mention + materiality assessment as the main point.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality assessment and discusses financial impacts and ongoing risks from an incident without any narrative description of the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact without incident details. No specific facts, dates, amounts, roles, or named entities are present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph details the operational impacts of a cybersecurity incident (shipping, receiving, manufacturing, support functions), evidence of files taken, and response actions (interim measures, investigation, review, notifications), clearly fitting Incident Disclosure with reference to a real event. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, named firms/tools), named frameworks, cyber-specific roles, or other firm-unique elements per the criteria, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the scope and details of a specific cybersecurity incident, including the number of affected consumers and types of data not compromised, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria with reference to a real event. It includes one hard verifiable quantified fact (35.5 million consumers) and a company-specific practice, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one such fact.


reasoning: Paragraph details regulatory delays in incident disclosure, law enforcement cooperation, apprehension of a suspect, and status of data availability, which are incident response actions and scope updates for a real cybersecurity event, fitting Incident Disclosure. Two specific dates (May 9 and June 5, 2024) qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific ransomware incident including date, what happened, scope (internal IT systems), and response actions (containment, expert engagement, investigation), fitting Incident Disclosure. It has one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph details financial impacts (expenses and lost revenue) from a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial cost assessments without incident narrative. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts including two dollar amounts and specific fiscal periods, qualifying as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Paragraph assesses financial impacts (material non-recurring expenses in Q1 due to notification requirements) and mentions cyber insurance for a referenced incident without any narrative of what happened, scope, or response details, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial cost/impact without incident description.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on financial/operational materiality assessment and business risks from a referenced incident without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, matching Strategy Integration per tiebreakers (financial impact without describing what happened). Contains specific dates qualifying as firm-specific facts but only one hard verifiable date (Dec 31, 2024) for QV threshold, with the full year as additional specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the scope of exfiltrated data (IT and financial info for specific 10-K filing), which is part of an incident disclosure including affected data details. Contains one firm-specific verifiable date but not two, so Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, detailing unauthorized access, a misdirected wire payment, and deleted emails, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria including scope and impact. It includes one hard verifiable fact (specific dollar amount), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one such fact.


reasoning: This paragraph details response actions to a specific cybersecurity incident, including launching an investigation, notifying law enforcement, regulators, and users about unauthorized access, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria. No named firms, dates, roles, frameworks, or other verifiable facts are present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including date, unauthorized access details, response actions, remediation timeline, and operational impact, fitting Incident Disclosure. Only one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific per decision test.


reasoning: Paragraph details response actions to an ongoing cybersecurity incident (system restoration, expert retention, law enforcement coordination, notifications) and specifies scope to Change Healthcare systems, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure criteria for real event response and affected systems.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments of an incident's impact on business operations and financial condition, with no incident narrative or response details, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact without describing what happened. It includes one firm-specific verifiable fact (named product 'Dropbox Sign'), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with timeline of events, access details, data scope, and response actions, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria including narrative and affected systems/data.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses financial expenses, operational impact, and materiality of an unnamed 'Incident' without any narrative description of what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessment without incident details. No specific dates, amounts, roles, frameworks, or named entities are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's ongoing investigation into an unauthorized access incident, including data exfiltration, scope assessment, and evaluation of notifications, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria for describing a real event and response actions. No specific dates, named entities, metrics, frameworks, or firm-unique facts are present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident with narrative of unauthorized activity, detection, containment actions including system isolation on a specific date, expert retention, law enforcement coordination, and operational resumption, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria. Contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific per decision test.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with what happened (unauthorized access to IT systems), specific dates, scope (portion of IT systems), and response actions (containment, investigation, incident response plan activation, system shutdown), clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including the date of identification, how it was detected (employee communications from threat actor), nature (unauthorized access to information systems), and initial response (activation of incident response plan), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer with no reference to cybersecurity or any substantive disclosure, directly matching the 'None/Other' category for forward-looking disclaimers and non-cybersecurity content.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the financial and operational impact and materiality of a referenced incident without providing an incident narrative, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessment without describing what happened. It contains one specific date, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (needs two hard facts).


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including the date of detection, nature of suspicious activity on IT systems, and initial response actions like isolation and investigation, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on financial costs ($600k expenses), operational impacts (two weeks lost production), and materiality conclusion for Q4 without describing the incident itself or what happened, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. Contains multiple hard verifiable facts including dollar amount, quantified duration, and specific date, exceeding the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident with date of detection, unauthorized access description, response actions (investigation, experts, law enforcement), and containment status, matching Incident Disclosure criteria. Contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including the date it was learned, what happened (data exfiltration from information systems, possibly containing personal information), and initial response actions (containment, investigation with law enforcement and experts), fitting Incident Disclosure. It has one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including unauthorized access, scope of affected personal data for 8.4M users, and what was not compromised, fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly with no financial impact or materiality focus.


reasoning: Paragraph describes specific response actions (containment, safeguards, monitoring, expert engagement, notifications) to 'the incident,' a real event, qualifying as Incident Disclosure. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable details present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: This paragraph assesses the materiality of an incident on financial condition without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without describing what happened. It uses entirely generic boilerplate language with no named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: Paragraph details incident response actions (communication with stakeholders, following safety standards, identifying effects) and minimal operational impact (continued global service provision), referencing a real incident, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. Contains one firm-specific named internal system, qualifying as Firm-Specific but not reaching Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: Paragraph references the specific Change Healthcare cyberattack (real event) and describes ongoing response actions including data assessment, support for impacted individuals, notifications to providers/customers, and service restoration progress. Two hard verifiable facts (specific date and named system/service) qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality assessment and lack of financial/operational impact from 'the incident,' with no narrative of what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for brief incident mention + materiality conclusion as main point. No firm-specific facts, frameworks, dates, or quantifiable details present.


reasoning: Paragraph details response actions (containment, investigation, notifications) to a disclosed cybersecurity incident at the subsidiary, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria for incident response actions referencing a real event. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable metrics present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any similar filing.


reasoning: This paragraph describes response actions to a real cybersecurity incident, including activating the response plan, internal/external investigation, taking systems offline, notifying law enforcement, and ongoing restoration/assessment, which fits Incident Disclosure criteria. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable details are present, rendering it entirely generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a detailed narrative of a specific cybersecurity incident, including dates, what happened (ransomware encryption and data disclosure), scope (files in network, Company data), and management's materiality assessment, fitting Incident Disclosure per guidelines and tiebreakers. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident, including the date learned (February 21, 2024), exfiltration of data from information systems (some potentially personal), and immediate response actions like containment and investigation, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the scope of affected data and confirms no compromise of critical assets like passwords, private keys, or customer funds in a specific incident, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria for incident scope and operational impact. No specific dates, named entities, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph contains standard SEC legal boilerplate disclaiming that Item 7.01 information is not 'filed' or incorporated by reference, with no cybersecurity content or substantive disclosure fitting any category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes integration of cybersecurity risk management into the company's enterprise risk management programs, sharing methodologies, reporting, and governance, which directly matches Risk Management Process (ERM integration). No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a specific real incident (containment, ongoing remediation, working with experts), fitting Incident Disclosure as it references actual incident handling without broader strategy or processes. No named entities, dates, metrics, roles, or frameworks make it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the scope of an actual incident (exfiltrated files, accessed systems with sensitive/personal information) and response actions (investigation, notification evaluation), fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific dates, names, metrics, roles, or frameworks; uses vague terms like 'certain files' and 'accessed systems', making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details remediation actions and post-incident status (removal of third party from IT systems, restoration of access, confirmation of data integrity), which are response actions to a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, names, or metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph assesses the financial and operational materiality of a cyber incident with a standalone conclusion that impacts are not material, without incident narrative or description of what happened, per tiebreakers fitting Strategy Integration. Contains only boilerplate phrases like 'material impact,' 'financial condition,' and 'business operations' with no specific dates, amounts, roles, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the financial and operational impact of a cybersecurity incident and provides a materiality conclusion without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessment without incident narrative. No specific facts, dates, amounts, or named entities are present, making it generic boilerplate materiality language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and its receipt of updates from the audit committee and executive leadership team on an annual basis, directly matching the Board Governance category as the board is the grammatical subject.


reasoning: This paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer about potential cybersecurity incidents and a cross-reference to Risk Factors, containing no substantive disclosure on any cybersecurity topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board of directors and its audit committee's oversight of cybersecurity risk management, making 'Board Governance' the clear fit as the board/committee is the grammatical subject. No firm-specific facts, frameworks, or verifiable details are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own internal cybersecurity risk management process, with vendor evaluation as a component, fitting Risk Management Process per tiebreakers (internal processes mentioning vendors → Risk Management Process). No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, dates, roles, or quantifiable details present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a board committee ('The Committee') receiving periodic reports and updates from management on cybersecurity risks and incidents, and reporting to the full Board, which directly matches Board Governance as the committee is the grammatical subject overseeing cyber risk.


reasoning: This paragraph details the company's own cyber risk management program for identifying, assessing, managing, mitigating, and responding to threats, integrated with enterprise risk management, fitting the Risk Management Process category. It lacks any named frameworks, roles, dates, or unique firm-specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on financial and operational impact assessment and materiality conclusion for a briefly mentioned incident, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers (brief incident mention + materiality as main point). Contains firm-specific reference to subsidiary Targus, making it Firm-Specific but lacking two verifiable hard facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing investments and enhancements to internal controls and processes for protecting systems and data, which aligns with the company's own risk management processes. No specific details, roles, frameworks, or incidents are mentioned, making it a generic description of internal cybersecurity efforts.


reasoning: The paragraph is a generic statement of dependence on IT systems and third-party providers with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, processes, or specifics, fitting None/Other as boilerplate or section intro.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines oversight duties on data privacy policies, cybersecurity compliance, and annual evaluation of the Cybersecurity Committee, with board-level oversight as the grammatical focus, aligning with Board Governance. The named Cybersecurity Committee qualifies as a firm-specific fact, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own cybersecurity program and its general protective purpose, aligning with internal risk management processes. No specific details, frameworks, roles, or incidents are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity program as part of enterprise risk management, focusing on assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, dates, or other specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Mr. Tao's general professional experience in business consultation, operations, and management in the marketing industry, with no reference to cybersecurity, making it non-substantive disclosure fitting 'None/Other'.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the identification and qualifications of a specific cybersecurity management role (Group Head, Cybersecurity/Information Security Officer), including experience and join date, making 'Management Role' the clear category.


reasoning: The paragraph specifies management roles (head of the ITS Department and executive management) as the grammatical subjects responsible for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, fitting 'Management Role' per guidelines and tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk management as integral to the company's overall enterprise risk management program, which directly matches Risk Management Process due to ERM integration. No firm-specific details, roles, frameworks, or verifiable facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Board of Directors as the grammatical subject receiving quarterly reports from the CISO and CIO on cybersecurity threats, risks, and mitigation processes, directly matching Board Governance criteria.


reasoning: Paragraph describes generic cybersecurity vulnerabilities and threats like malware, ransomware, and phishing without referencing any company-specific processes, governance, incidents, or strategies, qualifying as non-substantive content under None/Other. No named entities, frameworks, dates, roles, or verifiable facts present, confirming Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the audit committee reporting to the board and the board receiving briefings from management on cybersecurity, with the board and committee as grammatical subjects, directly matching Board Governance. No firm-specific facts, frameworks, or verifiable details are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal incident response and recovery frameworks, including biannual testing via simulations and tabletop exercises, which fits Risk Management Process as it focuses on IR planning. No named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or other firm-specific facts are present, rendering it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph provides generic descriptions of board and executive oversight of strategic and material risks without any mention of cybersecurity, qualifying as non-substantive non-cyber content under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal policies and employee training programs for protecting information, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own cybersecurity practices. No board, management roles, incidents, or third-party oversight is central; vendors are mentioned only as data subjects within internal processes.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion stating no cybersecurity incident has materially affected the company, fitting Strategy Integration per guidelines. No incident narrative or other substantive elements are present.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company's process for reviewing and monitoring key third-party IT providers' cybersecurity measures, including use of a specific tool, qualifying as Third-Party Risk rather than a component of internal processes. It includes one named third-party firm/tool (Security Scorecard), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (only one hard fact).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a generic step in the company's incident response process (eradication phase), fitting Risk Management Process as it covers IR planning without referencing a specific incident or other elements. No specific facts, frameworks, or unique details are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity program as a critical element of its overall risk management approach, focusing on key areas, which aligns with the company's own internal risk management processes. It contains no specific details, incidents, roles, or other category elements.


reasoning: The paragraph vaguely describes generic third-party e-mail and cloud storage services from unnamed providers with built-in protections, providing no substantive cybersecurity disclosure or details on oversight, processes, or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying specific management roles (CIO and Director of IT Security, Risk and Compliance) and their qualifications/experience, making 'Management Role' the most applicable category. It does not describe board oversight, internal processes, or incidents.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses qualifications of the information technology team in cybersecurity, aligning with Management Role focus on management qualifications, though no specific roles like CISO are named. No firm-specific facts present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on CSO and CISO (management roles) staying informed and communicating updates, with reporting lines to a committee that informs the Board; per tiebreakers, management roles are the main focus despite board mention. Contains cybersecurity-specific roles (CSO, CISO) and a named non-generic committee, qualifying as Firm-Specific with no hard verifiable facts reaching Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities, collaboration, and reporting line of the 'internal cybersecurity coordinator,' making a management role (cybersecurity-specific position) the grammatical subject. This aligns with Management Role category over Risk Management Process, as the role identification and reporting is central rather than the processes themselves.


reasoning: The paragraph states no significant cybersecurity breach or associated financial impacts occurred in specific past periods, fitting Strategy Integration as a standalone materiality conclusion without incident narrative. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Audit Committee receiving regular reports and updates from management on cybersecurity risks and incidents, which directly describes board-level oversight of cyber risk.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board receiving updates on cybersecurity matters from the Audit Committee and Cybersecurity team, making the Board the grammatical subject and fitting Board Governance. 'Cybersecurity team' is a named internal team, qualifying as a firm-specific fact for Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on company management, specifically identifying the CFO as the CISO, who implements and maintains cybersecurity processes, aligning with 'Management Role' where a management role is the grammatical subject. It includes a cybersecurity-specific role (CISO), making it Firm-Specific with no hard verifiable facts reaching Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own cybersecurity programs, including threat intelligence investment, industry engagement, and use of external experts for testing and assessment, which fits Risk Management Process as it focuses on internal processes. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, or verifiable metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying the CIO and VP of Information Security as the primary management roles responsible for cybersecurity risk management and supervision, directly matching the 'Management Role' category definition.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's incident response plan undergoing ongoing review, refinement, and updates based on lessons learned and best practices, which directly pertains to its own internal risk management processes, specifically IR planning.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding the absence of material cybersecurity incidents and immaterial expenses over the last three fiscal years, with no incident narrative or description of events, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no named frameworks, roles, specific dates, quantifiable metrics, or other firm-specific facts, resulting in Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cyber insurance coverage to mitigate financial losses, which fits Strategy Integration as it covers cyber insurance and financial impact mitigation without referencing incidents or processes. No specific facts, frameworks, or unique details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own internal strategies for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including traffic monitoring and user training, which fits Risk Management Process as it focuses on internal processes. It lacks any named frameworks, roles, dates, or specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own internal processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks to its systems and data, which fits Risk Management Process; third-party services are mentioned only as part of the scope, not centrally. No specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion with no incident narrative or reference to specific events, directly matching the Strategy Integration category and tiebreaker for materiality assessments. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's recognition of the importance of developing, implementing, and maintaining cybersecurity measures to protect systems and data, which centers on their own internal risk management processes. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, roles, dates, or metrics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's own internal processes for employee training and phishing simulations, aligning with Risk Management Process as it focuses on awareness and incident training without referencing board, management roles, vendors centrally, incidents, or strategy. It contains no named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or unique facts, qualifying as Generic Boilerplate per the decision test.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the responsibilities of the CFO, COO, and CEO for managing cybersecurity risks and policies, making management roles the grammatical subject and central focus. No board or processes are mentioned, fitting Management Role over other categories.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors providing oversight of the cybersecurity program through periodic (quarterly) updates and annual discussions in enterprise risk management, directly matching 'Board Governance' criteria where the board is the grammatical subject.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the activities of cybersecurity professionals in analyzing threats, defining policies, implementing protections, monitoring, and responding to incidents, which aligns with the company's internal risk management processes. No specific roles, frameworks, dates, or unique facts are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how management monitors prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation of cybersecurity incidents, focusing on the company's internal processes with service providers mentioned only as a component, fitting Risk Management Process over Management Role (no specific roles named) or Third-Party Risk (vendors not central). No specific facts, frameworks, dates, roles, or metrics present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: This paragraph expresses generic goals for business continuity and data protection in the event of a cyber incident, with no substantive details on processes, roles, governance, incidents, or strategy, fitting 'None/Other'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's own internal cybersecurity risk management system for identifying, assessing, mitigating risks, and protecting information assets, fitting Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, roles, dates, or other specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process of providing regular training to employees and contractors on cybersecurity threats and policies, fitting Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own risk mitigation practices. No named frameworks, roles, dates, or other specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response plan (IRP) and its testing via annual tabletop exercises, which directly aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on IR planning and internal processes. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, roles, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity awareness training and a risk management process for third-party providers, including due diligence and monitoring, which fits Risk Management Process as vendors are a component of internal processes rather than the central topic. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, or verifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly addresses 'Management's Role' in cybersecurity, detailing how IT staff handle day-to-day management without specialized training and considerations for enhancement or outsourcing, making 'Management Role' the clear fit. No specific facts like named roles, dates, or metrics are present, rendering it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's planned internal processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks as part of its broader risk management system, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains a firm-specific named system (BDTP TM), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, including multi-layered measures and an incident response plan, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on their own processes for protecting systems and informing management. No firm-specific facts, named frameworks, or verifiable details are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's establishment of an internal multi-disciplinary team (CyberSmart Defender Network) for cybersecurity awareness, sharing learnings, and training, which falls under the company's own risk management processes. It contains firm-specific facts like the establishment year and named internal program/team, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to lacking two hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: This paragraph states a materiality conclusion regarding the financial impact of an incident without any incident narrative, description, or specifics, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for standalone materiality assessments. It uses standard boilerplate language with no named entities, dates, metrics, or unique facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing incident response actions (forensic analysis and investigation) for a specific real cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure criteria which includes response actions. No specific facts like dates, names, or metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any similar filing.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a standalone materiality assessment concluding no material cybersecurity impacts in 2024, with a cross-reference to Risk Factors, fitting Strategy Integration per guidelines. The reference to '2024' is a specific date fact, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable (only one hard fact).


reasoning: The paragraph addresses financial reimbursement via cybersecurity insurance for a cyber incident without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration for business/financial impacts and cyber insurance. No specific facts, frameworks, or verifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph states a materiality conclusion about an incident's impact on financial condition and operations without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for standalone materiality assessments. The text contains no named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses potential material financial impact of an incident without describing what happened or providing incident narrative, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessment without incident details. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, or named entities are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles, including the Senior Director of IT and CFO, responsible for implementing and maintaining cybersecurity processes, making 'Management Role' the best fit as roles are the grammatical focus. 'Senior Director of IT' is a firm-specific cybersecurity-related role, qualifying as Firm-Specific with no hard verifiable facts for higher levels.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on qualifications and reporting lines of specific management roles (CTO and senior director of cybersecurity and compliance), which aligns with Management Role; brief mention of risk program is generic and secondary.


reasoning: This paragraph details incident response actions such as restoring systems, retaining experts, working with law enforcement, and notifying regulators, which directly fits Incident Disclosure as it references operational impacts and response to a real event in an Item 1.05 filing. No firm-specific facts, named entities, dates, or frameworks are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding an incident's impact on financial condition without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, roles, or metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity insurance coverage for various costs and forward-looking guidance on assessment, fitting Strategy Integration which includes cyber insurance without incident narrative. No firm-specific facts, dates, amounts, or named entities present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the financial and operational materiality of an incident without describing what happened, scope, or response actions, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments lacking incident narrative. It contains no named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable facts, making it entirely generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses operational non-disruption and potential financial/business risks/impacts from 'the Incident' without any incident narrative, scope, response details, or what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident description. No named frameworks, roles, dates, metrics, or firm-specific facts present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph provides a materiality conclusion for an incident's impact on operations and financial condition without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without describing what happened.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including the threat actor's actions (access and exfiltration of limited data including some PII) and response (notifications to affected parties and regulators), fitting Incident Disclosure. No firm-specific or verifiable facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes post-incident response actions including notifications to law enforcement and regulatory bodies, which fits Incident Disclosure as it details response to a referenced cybersecurity event ('the matter'). No firm-specific facts, named entities, dates, or frameworks are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the financial and operational materiality of a referenced incident without any narrative, scope, or response details, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for standalone materiality conclusions. No specific dates, amounts, names, or frameworks are mentioned, rendering it entirely generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph addresses business and financial risks (litigation, customer behavior changes, regulatory scrutiny, insurance availability/costs) due to a past cybersecurity incident without any incident narrative or description, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses waivers under credit and lease agreements with no reference to cybersecurity, qualifying as non-cybersecurity content under None/Other.


reasoning: This paragraph assesses the financial and operational materiality of an incident without any narrative description of what happened, scope, or response, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident details. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding an incident's impact on financial condition without any incident narrative, scope, or response details, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, dates, or metrics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph details incident response actions, specifically notifications to law enforcement and regulators about 'the matter' (implying the cybersecurity incident), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, named entities, dates, or metrics, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes operational impacts (inaccessible networks and services) of an ongoing cybersecurity incident and directs to a specific status page, qualifying as Incident Disclosure with reference to a real event. Contains one firm-specific verifiable fact: the named system/domain and incident page for Change Healthcare, but lacks a second hard fact for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's own internal information technology and cybersecurity programs, including policies, procedures, assessments, monitoring, response plans, and testing, which directly matches Risk Management Process as the focus on internal processes. It names 'Dime Community Bank' as the entity maintaining these programs, qualifying as a firm-specific fact with no hard verifiable facts reaching the Quantified-Verifiable threshold and no named frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph describes executive leadership changes (CEO resignation and interim appointment) in a subsidiary with no reference to cybersecurity risks, incidents, processes, or governance, making it non-cybersecurity content classified as None/Other. None/Other paragraphs are always Generic Boilerplate regardless of named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality assessment of an incident's impact on operations and financial condition without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without describing what happened. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, or metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the operational impact and potential financial/legal/reputational effects of a referenced incident without providing any narrative of what happened, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for impact assessments lacking incident details. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, amounts, or named entities are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses financial impact (insurance recoveries covering costs) of a cybersecurity incident without any incident narrative, description of what happened, scope, or response details, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreaker for financial cost/impact assessment without incident description. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, amounts, or named entities present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions and operational status related to a specific cybersecurity incident, including containment, restoration of IT environment, and business operations recovery, fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, names, or metrics are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph details the ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, including assessment of exfiltrated personal information scope and planned notifications to affected parties and regulators, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria for incident response actions and scope. It contains no specific dates, named entities, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable facts, qualifying as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, including specific dates of notification and confirmation, and the scope of exposure (customer information), directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria. Two specific dates qualify it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: Financial impact and materiality assessment of 'the incident' without any narrative of what happened, scope, or response details fits Strategy Integration per tiebreakers (financial cost/impact without incident description). No dates, amounts, names, or other verifiable facts; purely boilerplate materiality language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a specific incident ('this incident'), including closing the point of unlawful access and notifying impacted customers, fitting Incident Disclosure as it references a real event and response without financial or governance details. No specific dates, named entities, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes ongoing investigation into the scope of potentially affected data and response actions including remediation and insurance coordination for a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific dates, named firms, amounts, roles, or other verifiable facts present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph details response actions (containment, system restoration, resuming operations) to a referenced cybersecurity incident, aligning with Incident Disclosure criteria for real event response. Lacks any named entities, dates, metrics, frameworks, or firm-specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph briefly references an ongoing incident and standard response actions but centers on the materiality conclusion that it is not reasonably likely to impact financial condition or results of operations, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for brief incident mention + materiality as main point. No named entities, dates, amounts, roles, or other specific facts are present, resulting in Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the materiality of an incident's financial impact without any incident narrative or description, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident details. No specific facts, dates, roles, or metrics are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph assesses the financial and operational impact of a past incident without providing any incident narrative, description of what happened, or response actions, fitting the tiebreaker for financial cost/impact assessment without incident details into Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing incident response actions (investigation and forensic analysis) and potential scope (whether PII was taken), referencing a real cybersecurity incident with threat actors. It fits Incident Disclosure as it details response to an actual event without focusing on governance, processes, or strategy.


reasoning: This paragraph details the operational scope and impacts of a cybersecurity incident (shops open globally, in-person orders available, disruptions to online ordering in parts of the US, uninterrupted deliveries), which aligns with 'descriptions of affected data/systems scope or operational impact of a disclosed incident' under Incident Disclosure. No firm-specific facts, frameworks, dates, or quantifiable details are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the nature of a specific cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized access, data exfiltration, and encryption of non-production systems, fitting the Incident Disclosure category as it provides a narrative of what happened without financial impact or materiality assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident including the date it occurred, the nature of the event (system outage), and initial response actions (activating incident response team), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses potential material financial impact from 'the incident' without any narrative description of the event, response, or scope, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without incident details. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, or metrics are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph briefly mentions an ongoing incident investigation but centers on monitoring its timing and materiality, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for brief incident references paired with materiality assessments without narrative details. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable facts are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific incident response action (mailing notification letters post-investigation) referencing a real event's findings, fitting Incident Disclosure which includes response actions. No firm-specific facts, dates, names, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any similar incident.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a narrative of a real cybersecurity incident, including the date of awareness and unauthorized access to systems, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), qualifying as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes post-incident restoration of affected IT systems/data, ongoing minor operational impacts, and closure of the authorities' investigation for a specific cyber incident, fitting Incident Disclosure as it references response actions and operational scope of a real event. No hard verifiable facts (dates, amounts, named firms/tools) or firm-specific elements (roles, committees, named programs) are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a narrative of an actual cybersecurity incident, including the specific date it occurred, the nature of the event (systems outage caused by a cybersecurity attack), and initial response actions (activating incident response team), which directly matches Incident Disclosure. It does not focus on governance, processes, or financial impacts.


reasoning: This paragraph details the operational scope and impacts of a cybersecurity incident (shipping, manufacturing, back office functions) along with response actions (temporary measures, restoration), directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria for real event description, scope, and response. No dates, dollar amounts, named entities, frameworks, roles, or quantifiable metrics are present, rendering it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes scope of incident impact (primary website inaccessible) and response action (special website created for communications), referencing a real event, which matches Incident Disclosure criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the material impact of a referenced incident on operations and financial condition without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without describing what happened. No specific facts, frameworks, dates, amounts, or named entities are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes the incident's scope (threat actor access to IT system with sensitive personal information) and response actions (planned notifications to affected parties and regulators), directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria for actual event narrative and response. No named entities, dates, frameworks, roles, or verifiable metrics present, making it fully generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing assessment of material financial impact from an incident without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, fitting Strategy Integration for materiality assessments. No specific facts, dates, amounts, or unique elements present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph details the operational impact, affected systems (financial and operating reporting systems), and duration of a specific cybersecurity incident, directly matching Incident Disclosure criteria for scope and impact of a real event.


reasoning: The paragraph assesses the financial and operational materiality of a past incident without any incident narrative, response details, or scope, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for financial impact assessments without describing what happened. No specific dates, amounts, roles, frameworks, or verifiable facts are present, confirming Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph describes response actions and cause of a specific cybersecurity incident (fourth-party vendor compromise), fitting Incident Disclosure as it references a real event with narrative and scope without financial details. No hard verifiable facts, named entities, frameworks, roles, or firm-specific details per criteria, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph assesses financial materiality of a specific past incident (impact on Q4 2023 results but not overall condition), without incident narrative, scope, or response details, matching 'Financial cost/impact assessment of an incident WITHOUT describing what happened → Strategy Integration' tiebreaker.