content_category: None/Other

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference directing readers to another section for risk discussion and does not itself describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy impact. Under the cross-reference rule, it is None/Other.

provider: openai

stage: benchmark


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section and does not itself describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, an actual incident, or a materiality assessment. Under the rules, cross-references pointing elsewhere are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a cautionary statement about the limits of any cybersecurity program and a cross-reference to risk factors, rather than a substantive description of governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy impact. It contains no qualifying cybersecurity-specific facts beyond generic boilerplate language.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph is anchored by a description of a real past cybersecurity event—its timing and the nature of the compromised data—so it primarily answers what happened in an incident. Although it also includes hypothetical future-impact language, the actual 2017 incident is the paragraph’s central substantive disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to another section of the filing and does not itself describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy impact. Because it contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, it is classified as None/Other.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that past cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected the company or its financial condition and results, which fits Strategy Integration under the materiality rule. The remaining content is generic discussion of ongoing investment and a cross-reference to risk factors, without substantive process detail or firm-specific facts.


content_category: Management Role

category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes management’s organizational structure for cybersecurity, centered on the Enterprise Cybersecurity MRG’s role, composition, and responsibilities. Although it mentions escalation to the Audit Committee and Board, the main focus is the management-level steering committee rather than board oversight itself.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and service providers, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It describes vendor due diligence, contract review, and ongoing monitoring, which shows cybersecurity-specific third-party risk practices but does not provide firm-unique or externally verifiable details.


reasoning: This paragraph expresses a general commitment to protecting IT assets and data but does not describe any actual governance structure, management role, cybersecurity process, third-party oversight, incident, or business impact assessment. It is therefore non-substantive boilerplate rather than a disclosure answering one of the core Item 1C questions.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the board and how the board is educated on cybersecurity matters, which is board oversight. Its specificity comes from firm-specific management roles—the VPIT and DIS—serving as presenters to the board.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board and its committees oversee cybersecurity risk, including delegation to specific board committees and information flow from management to the board. Although it mentions management reporting and exercises, the dominant focus is the board-level oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk from external third parties and vendors, making third-party risk the central topic. Although it also includes a materiality statement, most of the paragraph focuses on vendor vetting and oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity, specifically by delegating oversight to a named Cybersecurity Committee. While it also mentions the company’s risk framework and a materiality assessment regarding past incidents, the central question it answers is board-level oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-oriented assessment of cybersecurity’s effect on the business, including the statement that the company has not experienced any material cyber threats or incidents to date and that future incidents could materially affect operations and financial condition. The remaining language is largely cautionary and cross-referential rather than describing governance, management, or specific cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: This paragraph is a general background statement about the company's exposure to cyber threats due to its business activities, but it does not describe oversight, management roles, risk processes, third-party risk controls, an actual incident, or a materiality/business impact assessment. It therefore fits best as non-substantive introductory disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how management is kept informed and exercises its monitoring role over cybersecurity risks and incidents. While it references program activities like threat intelligence and security tool reports, the main focus is management’s role in receiving and overseeing that information.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that the company is not aware of any cybersecurity incidents that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect its business, results, or financial condition. The remaining sentence is only a cross-reference to risk-factor disclosure and does not change the primary focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes which management roles are responsible for handling cybersecurity risk, so it is about management organization rather than board oversight or process details. It includes firm-specific leadership roles tied to cybersecurity responsibility, which raises specificity above generic or merely domain-adapted language.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does, including risk assessments, security controls, training, incident response planning, and monitoring activities. Although it includes a vendor-risk component, third-party oversight is only one element within a broader description of the overall cybersecurity risk management program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the Bancorp’s cybersecurity program activities—risk management, protective safeguards, and incident response procedures—so it is best classified as Risk Management Process. Although it ends with a materiality-related conclusion, most of the paragraph is devoted to describing the cybersecurity program rather than business impact.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains why cybersecurity risk is especially significant to the company’s business model, data holdings, and funds transmission activities, which fits Strategy Integration. It does not describe governance, management roles, or specific cybersecurity processes; instead it frames cyber risk in relation to business operations and exposure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It includes cybersecurity-specific vendor oversight language, but does not provide named programs, roles, firms, dates, or other company-unique verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was disclosed, the response taken, operational disruption, and recovery timeline. Although it also mentions financial impact and a materiality conclusion, the dominant focus is what happened and its immediate consequences.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board oversees cybersecurity through the Audit Committee and information flows from management to the Board. Although management roles are mentioned, their purpose here is to explain the Board’s oversight structure rather than management organization.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, operational disruption, remediation steps, and resulting effects. Although it mentions financial impact, the dominant focus is the incident itself and its aftermath.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to handle cybersecurity, including team composition, senior leadership roles, and reporting lines. Although it also mentions use of third parties and security activities, those points are secondary to the management structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes oversight activities—reviewing information security examination reports, regulatory communications, and discussing emerging information security risk issues—which is a board/committee governance function rather than management execution. It contains cybersecurity-related oversight language, but no company-unique roles, committees, dates, or other verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the Board and senior leadership, including the Board's oversight interactions with the CISO. While it mentions the CISO's leadership role, the dominant focus is the governance and oversight structure rather than management qualifications or program activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-related conclusion that the company is not aware of any material cybersecurity incidents affecting it, which is a Strategy Integration assessment under the rules. The remainder is largely risk-oriented discussion of evolving threats and potential business impact rather than describing governance, management roles, or a concrete incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board and its committees oversee cybersecurity, how information flows upward, and how escalation to the board occurs. Although several management roles are named, they are included mainly to explain the board oversight structure rather than management organization.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the Board and senior governance bodies, including board-level engagement and oversight exercises. Although it names the CISO, the main focus is the oversight structure rather than management qualifications or program activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and partners, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor vetting and ongoing monitoring for cybersecurity compliance rather than broader internal security operations or governance.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how cybersecurity information is reported upward and overseen by the board, especially through the audit committee and board-level reporting structure. Although management roles are mentioned, they are described mainly as part of the board oversight chain.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing readers to Item 1A risk factors rather than describing cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy impact itself. Under the rules, pure cross-references belong in None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does to identify, detect, and respond to incidents, including monitoring tools and testing activities. Its focus is on operational security processes rather than board oversight, management roles, or third-party vendor risk.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company’s cybersecurity program detects, investigates, and assesses incidents, which is a description of operational cybersecurity processes. Although third-party events are mentioned, the central focus is the internal detection and analysis workflow rather than vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board, through its Audit Committee, oversees cybersecurity risk, including the information it receives and reporting flows. Although it mentions management and testing activities, those details are framed as inputs to committee oversight rather than as the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment about whether cybersecurity incidents have affected or are reasonably likely to affect the business or financial condition, which fits Strategy Integration. It does not describe an actual incident or a cybersecurity process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the Board oversees cybersecurity risk, including its role in enterprise risk oversight, receiving updates from management, and being informed of high-severity incidents. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or externally verifiable cybersecurity facts beyond generic governance descriptions.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s incident response process—containment, remediation, recovery, use of forensic support, disclosure-related engagement, and plan updates. Although it mentions notifying the Board and Audit Committee, those references are secondary to explaining how the response program operates.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity oversight is structured between the Board, its committee, and management reporting, which is board-level governance. It includes a firm-specific cybersecurity-related management role, but otherwise consists mostly of common governance mechanics.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does to assess, identify, and manage cyber risk, including controls, training, third-party assessments, and response procedures. Its focus is on operational risk management activities rather than board oversight, management roles, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity breaches have not materially affected the company to date while acknowledging that such threats could materially affect its business, results, or financial condition. The remaining text mainly cross-references broader risk factors rather than describing governance, management, or specific cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that no cybersecurity risks, incidents, or vulnerabilities have had a material adverse effect on the company, which makes Strategy Integration the best fit under the SEC materiality rule. Although it includes some risk and threat references, those are supporting context rather than the main purpose.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight chain for cybersecurity risk—identified risks are reviewed by the ERM Committee and then reported upward for board-committee review—so it is chiefly about board governance. Although it also mentions third-party risk and general risk processes, those are secondary to the governance structure described.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes operation of the cybersecurity/incident response program—reviewing and drilling on a response plan—rather than board oversight or management qualifications. Its mention of the specifically named Emergency Incident Response Team makes it more company-specific than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how IBM management is organized to handle cybersecurity, including the E&TS organization, the CISO, PSIRT, CSIRT, and BISOs and their respective responsibilities. While it mentions third-party supplier risk and product vulnerabilities, the main focus is the company’s internal cybersecurity leadership structure and reporting responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and escalation chain for cybersecurity matters, culminating in elevation of significant matters to a board committee. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain how cybersecurity information flows upward for board-level oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity risk through the Audit Committee and management reporting to the board. Its main purpose is the governance and oversight structure rather than the operational cybersecurity program itself.


reasoning: The paragraph mainly states that the trust has no active operations, customers, or personal/credit data, implying minimal cybersecurity exposure rather than describing governance, management, or a substantive cybersecurity process. Because it provides no concrete cybersecurity measures or event details, it fits None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management’s conclusion that no cybersecurity incidents have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, which is a materiality/business-impact assessment. The cross-reference to Item 1A is secondary and does not change the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality and business-impact assessment, stating that no cybersecurity incidents have materially affected the company and discussing potential financial exposure and insurance coverage. Its focus is on business/financial effect rather than governance, management structure, or operational cyber processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, its operational and data impacts, and remediation steps taken afterward. Although it also mentions ongoing threat risk, the real incident narrative is the dominant focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does to identify, assess, and mitigate cyber risk, including monitoring, software updates, device access policies, cloud migration, and technical safeguards. Its focus is on operational security measures rather than board oversight, management structure, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk from vendors and supply chain partners through screening, risk ranking, rescreening, and vendor requirements. Although it also mentions cyber insurance, the dominant focus is third-party oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the cybersecurity program does at an operational level: incident identification, containment, remediation, consultant support, employee training, and phishing tests. Although it mentions the CSO and an information security team, the focus is on program activities rather than management structure or board oversight.


reasoning: This paragraph is background context about the company's reliance on technology systems, third-party applications, and sensitive data, but it does not describe board oversight, management roles, cybersecurity processes, third-party risk management practices, a specific incident, or a materiality/business impact assessment. It is therefore non-substantive contextual language rather than one of the core disclosure categories.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states a materiality-related conclusion that the company did not experience a material cybersecurity incident, which falls under Strategy Integration per the materiality rule. The rest is forward-looking cautionary language and a cross-reference, without substantive governance or process detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company addresses cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes a generic practice of assessing vendors that seek access, but provides no named roles, committees, frameworks, dates, firms, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the Trust's cybersecurity measures and practices, such as isolated workstations and the use of passwords, passphrases, and two-factor or independent authorizations. Although it mentions banks, service providers, and vendors, third-party oversight is not the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to detect, escalate, assess, and disclose cybersecurity incidents, centering on the CISO, SOC, Crisis Response Team, General Counsel, and Disclosure Committee. Although it includes incident-response process elements, the emphasis is on management roles, reporting lines, and escalation responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks posed by third-party service providers, including assessments, reassessments, and contractual security requirements. While it uses cybersecurity-specific third-party risk concepts, it does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how cybersecurity oversight flows from the Board to the Audit Committee and how management information is escalated to the Board, which makes it a governance paragraph. Although it also mentions elements of the cybersecurity program, those details are subordinate to the oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board, through its Audit Committee, oversees cybersecurity and what information it receives from management. Although it mentions the CISO, the main focus is the Board-level oversight structure and reporting flow rather than management organization or program activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management's conclusion that cybersecurity issues have not materially affected the company's business strategy, operations, or financial condition, which is a materiality/business-impact assessment. It does not describe governance, management structure, or specific risk management activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the cybersecurity program does—technical safeguards, vulnerability management, assessments, and threat intelligence integration—rather than who oversees it. It focuses on operational security measures, which fits Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that Seaboard is not aware of cybersecurity threats that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to affect its business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. Although it briefly mentions updating an information security plan and making investments, those points are generic and secondary to the business-impact conclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity activities and capabilities, including incident response planning, monitoring, insider threat protection, training, and awareness measures. Although it includes a firm-specific organizational claim about a 24/7 security operations center, its main focus is what the cybersecurity program does rather than board or management structure.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from suppliers and other third parties, including monitoring, assessments, and contract provisions. It uses cybersecurity-specific vendor risk practices, but does not include firm-unique names, roles, dates, or verifiable quantitative facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that prior cybersecurity threats have not materially affected the company's business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, which fits Strategy Integration under the materiality rule. The remaining language is largely speculative risk language and a cross-reference to Risk Factors.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains which management roles are responsible for cybersecurity and what those roles do, making it a management organization/responsibility disclosure. Although it mentions a risk-based approach and controls, the central focus is the CIO and CISO's responsibility for handling cybersecurity risks.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company manages cybersecurity risks from third-party service providers, especially during onboarding and assessment. While it uses cybersecurity-specific process language, it does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable facts such as named programs, committees, products, dates, firms, or quantified details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, including screening, due diligence, reassessment, and contractual security expectations. Its focus is vendor-related cyber oversight rather than the company's general internal cybersecurity program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the cybersecurity program does operationally—its controls, monitoring capabilities, training, and threat-handling approach. Although third-party service providers and consultants are mentioned, they are components of the broader cybersecurity program rather than the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting structure for cybersecurity, specifically how the CISO reports cybersecurity matters to RCSC. That makes it chiefly about governance and information flow rather than management’s operational role or the underlying cybersecurity program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes VF's cybersecurity program and activities, including systems to detect, contain, and respond to incidents, third-party risk processes, training, and an incident response plan. Although it includes management qualifications and reporting lines, those role details are secondary to the description of the overall cybersecurity program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-oriented assessment that the company has not experienced a cybersecurity threat or incident resulting in a material adverse impact on its business or operations, which fits Strategy Integration under the SEC materiality rule. Although it mentions detection and prevention activities, those are secondary to the business-impact discussion.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its committee oversee cybersecurity, including the information they receive from management and incident escalation to the Board. Although management roles are mentioned, they are framed mainly as part of the Board’s oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the business or results of operations to date, which fits Strategy Integration under the SEC-specific materiality rule. The remaining content is generic forward-looking risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management, or process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the cybersecurity program does—using threat intelligence, internal tools, network monitoring, and vulnerability scanning to identify and manage cyber risk. Although it mentions team qualifications, the main focus is the operational risk management process rather than management structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management's conclusion that cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected the company's business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, which is a materiality assessment. It does not describe governance, management structure, or cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to handle cybersecurity, identifying the CIO, CISO, CDT team, and Incident Response team and how information escalates among them. Although it mentions monitoring and remediation activities, the main emphasis is on management roles, team structure, and reporting lines.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk arising from third-party service providers, making vendor oversight the central topic. Although it includes a named audit standard (SOC 1), it does not provide firm-unique organizational details or externally verifiable quantified facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity program measures—policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify and address cybersecurity risks and incidents—so it is about risk management process. It is not focused on board oversight or management roles, and its use of information security concepts like confidentiality, integrity, and availability gives it domain-specific vocabulary despite lacking firm-specific facts.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily provides a cross-reference to another section and only makes a high-level statement that cybersecurity risk is part of enterprise risk management, without describing any actual governance structure, management role, or cybersecurity process. Because it is non-substantive and referential, None/Other is the best fit.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a general statement that cyber threats exist and are increasing, rather than a description of board oversight, management roles, a cybersecurity program, third-party risk controls, a specific incident, or a materiality/business impact assessment. It contains only broad risk language and threat examples with no substantive company-specific cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including its nature (ransomware), timing, response, recovery, and aftermath, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. Although it also includes materiality and remediation statements, those are secondary to the event narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes which management executives are responsible for cybersecurity-related activities, their reporting lines, and their qualifications. Although it mentions updates to the Board's Risk Committee, the focus is on management organization and expertise rather than board oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred and its effects, so it is best classified as Incident Disclosure. Although it cross-references Risk Factors and mentions possible material consequences, the core content is the occurrence and nature of the February 2023 event.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-related assessment by stating that cybersecurity risks are discussed elsewhere and that the company has not experienced any material cybersecurity incidents in the last three fiscal years. That kind of conclusion about business impact/material incidents fits Strategy Integration rather than incident disclosure or process description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality/business-impact assessment, stating that Murphy has not experienced material impacts to its business, operations, or reputation from cybersecurity incidents. The remaining language is general commitment and vigilance language, not a description of governance, management roles, or specific cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does: defense-in-depth controls, encryption, data loss prevention, and employee security awareness training. Its focus is on operational security measures rather than board oversight or management organization.


reasoning: The paragraph generally describes the purpose of cybersecurity governance within the company's security and risk management approach, focusing on how the program aligns with objectives and regulatory requirements rather than on board oversight or management structure. It does not provide concrete details about specific actors, processes, or mechanisms.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes management-level committee structure, leadership, composition, and reporting lines for cybersecurity-related oversight, which makes it a management organization paragraph rather than a board oversight discussion. The named internal committees and officer roles make it specific to the company.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk from vendors by imposing security, insurance, and incident-reporting requirements on third-party providers. Its focus is third-party oversight rather than the company’s internal cyber program or board/management structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity attacks to date have not been material to Verizon's operations or financial condition. The rest is forward-looking cautionary language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management, or processes.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity event, including its source, affected data, response actions, and operational impact, so it is best classified as Incident Disclosure. Although it references a third-party vendor and insurance coverage, those points are secondary to the description of the specific MOVEit incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including its disclosure and the ongoing investigation, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. Although it also includes a materiality statement, the incident itself is the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives the company's assessment of whether cybersecurity incidents have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. That makes it a Strategy Integration paragraph rather than a process or governance description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and supply-chain service providers, making third-party oversight the central topic. It describes vendor cyber assessments and contractual security/notification obligations, which are cybersecurity-specific practices but not firm-unique or externally verifiable facts.


reasoning: Despite the section header, this paragraph does not describe any actual cybersecurity governance, management structure, or risk management process. It is a generic risk statement about potential consequences of failures or breaches, including at third-party vendors, without explaining any concrete measures or assessments.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes actual cybersecurity incidents that occurred, including their nature, affected information, and a concrete example involving a vendor incident. Although it ends with a materiality conclusion, the dominant focus is what happened, which makes this Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its Risk Committee oversee cybersecurity risk, including committee delegation, approval responsibilities, and reporting flows from management to the board. While it mentions program activities, the dominant focus is the board-level oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does: protecting information, assessing and managing cyber risks, addressing third-party risk, and responding to incidents. Although it references the CSO, the focus is on program activities rather than management qualifications or board oversight.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risk posed by suppliers, vendors, and other third parties by imposing contractual security and data-use requirements. It does not focus on the company’s internal program or management structure, making Third-Party Risk the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a materiality/impact assessment of cybersecurity threats, stating the company has not been materially impacted while discussing potential exposure and losses. Although third-party risk is discussed, it is framed mainly as part of the overall impact of cybersecurity risks on the business.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risk from vendors and service providers, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It includes firm-specific organizational details such as a named Vendor Management Committee and Vendor Management team, but no externally verifiable dates, numbers, or named external firms.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains which management roles oversee the information security program and their relevant experience, which is about management organization and responsibility rather than board oversight or program activities. It includes firm-specific leadership titles, but the experience statement is not precise enough to clearly qualify as externally verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management’s conclusion that cybersecurity threats, including a previously disclosed incident, have materially affected and are reasonably likely to materially affect the company’s business, results of operations, or financial condition, which is a Strategy Integration/materiality assessment. Although it references an incident, it does not describe what happened, so it is not primarily an Incident Disclosure paragraph.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes management organization by identifying the CISO as the responsible executive and detailing his experience and qualifications. Although it mentions the information security program, the focus is on who leads it rather than on the program's operational processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes who leads the cybersecurity program, that person's reporting line, qualifications, and management responsibilities, which makes it a management-organization disclosure. Although it briefly mentions cyber risk activities, those are framed as the Senior Manager's responsibilities rather than describing the program's operational processes in detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. Although it ends with a materiality-related clause, most of the text focuses on vendor due diligence and ongoing supplier monitoring.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment by stating that cybersecurity threats are reasonably likely to materially affect the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The rest of the paragraph is forward-looking cautionary language and a cross-reference, not a description of governance, management, or risk-management activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Audit Committee oversees cybersecurity through reports, direct engagement with management, and receipt of audit and assessment results. Although it mentions elements of the cybersecurity program, the main focus is board-level oversight and information flow.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company evaluates and oversees cybersecurity risks posed by third-party service providers, including vendor selection, contractual requirements, and review of provider cybersecurity practices. It does not describe the company's broader internal cyber program or management structure as the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It describes vendor-related assessments and committee review at a high level, but without named committees, roles, frameworks, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its committees oversee cybersecurity, including the flow of cybersecurity reporting from management to the Audit Committee and full Board. Although it mentions a management role, the main focus is the board-level oversight structure rather than management’s organization or program activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality and business-impact assessment, stating that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected results to date while noting effects on business strategy and potential future adverse effects. Its focus is on operational and financial impact rather than governance, management structure, or specific risk management activities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity event involving Change Healthcare, including timing, response actions, and operational effects, which makes it an incident disclosure. Although it also includes a materiality conclusion, the incident narrative is the dominant content.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected and are not reasonably likely to materially affect the company, which fits Strategy Integration. The rest of the paragraph is forward-looking impact language and a risk-factor cross-reference rather than governance, management, or process detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board of Directors and the Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity risk, including reviews of management’s threat detection, response planning, and cybersecurity roadmap. Although it mentions the CIO’s responsibility, the dominant focus is the board-level oversight structure and information flow to directors.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor due diligence and ongoing supplier reviews in the context of a specific TPRM program rather than broader internal cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity-related event involving Change Healthcare, including timing, response actions, and operational effects, which makes it an incident disclosure. Although it ends with a materiality conclusion, most of the paragraph is focused on what happened and how the company responded.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how board committees oversee cybersecurity-related matters and coordinate review responsibilities, which is board-level oversight. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or externally verifiable facts, and the language remains largely generic governance and controls boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily explains which management roles handle cybersecurity risk and why they are qualified to do so. It focuses on leadership responsibilities, reporting structure, and experience rather than describing the cybersecurity program’s operational processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the cybersecurity program does: its defense-in-depth approach, policies, controls, testing, monitoring, training, and incident-response-related activities. Although third-party risk management is mentioned, it is only one component of a broader description of the company’s overall cybersecurity risk management program.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board, through the Audit Committee, oversees cybersecurity risk, which is board-level governance. It does not provide qualifying specific facts beyond generic oversight language.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors, business partners, and service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor-focused assessment and remediation activities rather than broader internal cybersecurity operations.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains who in management leads cybersecurity and why they are qualified, focusing on the CDO/CISO roles, experience, and credentials. Although it references monitoring and incident response activities, those are described mainly as responsibilities of these management leaders rather than as the cybersecurity program itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's incident response activities—its plan, updating, testing, and response-team operations—which makes it a risk management process disclosure. It is more than generic boilerplate because it includes a company-specific operational detail about exercises involving shipboard and shoreside employees.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the governance and oversight structure for cybersecurity risk escalation and review, culminating in board-level oversight and the committees through which information flows. Although it mentions management committees and program processes, the main question answered is how cybersecurity oversight is organized within the governance chain.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that prior cybersecurity incidents, including the August 2023 incident, have not materially affected the company. Although it references an actual incident, the main purpose is to assess business impact rather than describe the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident that occurred and its immediate consequences, which makes it an incident disclosure. Although it also states the incident was not material and prompted earlier IT initiatives, the dominant focus is what happened.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board and its committees oversee cybersecurity and receive reporting, which is board-level governance. While it mentions management roles, those references mainly explain information flow to the board rather than management’s standalone organizational role.


reasoning: This paragraph does not itself provide substantive cybersecurity governance, management, process, incident, or strategy disclosure; it only cross-references risk-factor discussion elsewhere in the filing. Under the rules, a cross-reference to other sections is classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected the company, which is a Strategy Integration disclosure under the SEC rules. Although it includes a cross-reference to Risk Factors, the core purpose is the company's conclusion about business and financial impact.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a component of the company’s cybersecurity program—using external assessors and consultants for security improvement, threat evaluation, forensic reviews, and independent assessments. Although third parties are mentioned, they are service providers supporting the company’s own program rather than the focus of vendor risk oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the existence and purpose of the company's cybersecurity risk management program, even though it begins with general risk language. It does not focus on board oversight, management organization, or a specific incident, and the process description remains high-level and non-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity, including management reporting and escalation to the full Board. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or externally verifiable cybersecurity facts beyond generic oversight language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains which management role leads cybersecurity and describes that leader's reporting relationships, experience, and qualifications, so it is about management organization rather than the cybersecurity program's activities. It contains firm-specific and externally checkable details such as the named VP role, named prior employers, and a stated experience duration.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states the company’s conclusion about the business and financial impact of cybersecurity threats and incidents, including that they have not materially affected results to date and could materially affect the business in the future. Although it references investments and insurance, those details are generic and serve the materiality/impact discussion rather than describing a specific program or incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to oversee cybersecurity, including the specific management team responsible and its responsibilities. Although the Board and Audit Committee are mentioned, they appear only as recipients of incident communications rather than the focus of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that the company is not aware of cybersecurity breaches that materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect its business, results, or financial condition. The rest is a cross-reference to risk-factor disclosure, so Strategy Integration is the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the Board oversees cybersecurity through reports, presentations, escalation thresholds, and discussions with management, which makes board oversight the central topic. Although management roles are mentioned, they serve mainly to describe the governance and reporting chain to the Board.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management's conclusion that cybersecurity threats have not materially affected and are not reasonably likely to materially affect the company's business strategy, financial condition, or results of operations, which is a Strategy Integration materiality assessment. The cross-reference to Item 1A is secondary and does not change the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk arising from third parties, specifically acquisition targets, through security due diligence, testing, remediation expectations, and contractual protections. It does not focus on internal program governance or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board is informed about and oversees cybersecurity, including receiving briefings and education. Its focus is board-level oversight and information flow rather than management operations or cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks from third-party service providers, including onboarding, due diligence, contractual requirements, and reviews of hosted applications. Although it includes cybersecurity-specific concepts and standards, it does not provide verifiable company-unique facts or quantified details.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to lead cybersecurity, focusing on the CIO’s role, experience, and the supporting cybersecurity team’s qualifications. Although it mentions program activities, the dominant content is management leadership structure and credentials.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains who in management is responsible for cybersecurity, the CISO's qualifications, and the reporting line, which makes management organization the main focus. Although it mentions board-level review and approval, those details are secondary to the description of management leadership and credentials.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to handle cybersecurity, focusing on the IT Security team's leadership, reporting lines, and the qualifications of the Director and Vice President. While it mentions some cybersecurity activities, the dominant content is about roles, experience, and credentials rather than the operational program itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company identifies and manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes a general organizational approach to vendor-related cyber risk without providing named roles, committees, programs, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes management’s cybersecurity leadership structure and the qualifications of the responsible executive, which fits Management Role. Although it mentions implementing policies and incident response, those activities are framed through the officer’s responsibilities rather than describing the cybersecurity program itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment of cybersecurity's effect on the company, including the statement that there have been no material incidents to date. The remaining language is generic cautionary and cross-referential rather than describing an actual incident or a cybersecurity program.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risk arising from third-party service providers, including imposing security expectations on them and assessing their security frameworks. It does not focus on the company's internal program or governance structure, making Third-Party Risk the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity program activities and controls, including threat detection, alerting, defensive measures, patching, recovery, and employee training. Although it mentions escalation to senior management, the focus is on what the cybersecurity program does rather than governance or management structure.


reasoning: This paragraph is a general introductory statement about the importance of cybersecurity and the purpose of the disclosure, but it does not describe any actual governance structure, management role, risk process, third-party oversight, incident, or business impact assessment.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a forward-looking risk disclaimer describing hypothetical adverse consequences if cybersecurity failures or breaches occur. It does not describe actual governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party risk management practices, incident facts, or a materiality conclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board-level oversight chain for cybersecurity, emphasizing the Board of Directors’ risk oversight and receipt of briefings on IT and cybersecurity matters. Although it also mentions internal reporting and an employee portal, those details are secondary to the governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to handle cybersecurity: it identifies the CISO as leader, outlines the CISO’s qualifications, and describes the team’s composition. Although it also mentions incident response activities and reporting, those are secondary to the management-structure focus.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing readers to Item 1A for any discussion of cybersecurity impacts, rather than providing substantive cybersecurity disclosure itself. Under the rules, cross-references about risks that may materially affect the company are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment: it states that no known cybersecurity threats or incidents had a material impact in the last fiscal year and that ongoing risks are reasonably likely to materially affect the company. That makes it a business-impact disclosure rather than a description of governance, management, or cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, including vendor assessments and ongoing monitoring. Its most distinguishing detail is the specific internal team composition involved in the third-party risk assessment process.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section for further discussion and does not itself describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk handling, incident details, or strategy impact. As a pure pointer elsewhere, it falls under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-oriented assessment of cybersecurity’s effect on the business, including the statement that the company has not experienced recent material cybersecurity incidents and that future incidents could materially affect business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. The rest is largely cautionary language and a cross-reference to risk factors.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes management's cybersecurity organization and reporting structure, centering on the CIO's role, responsibilities, and relationship to other executives. It is not mainly about board oversight or the underlying risk management program itself.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses a generic enterprise risk management role—the Chief Risk Officer—and broader risk oversight, but it does not describe cybersecurity oversight, management, processes, or any cyber-specific activity. Because it lacks substantive cybersecurity content, it is best classified as None/Other.


reasoning: This paragraph is an executive biography for the Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer and does not describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy impact. It is non-cybersecurity content, so None/Other applies.


reasoning: This paragraph is a hypothetical risk statement about what a cybersecurity attack could do, without describing any actual cybersecurity governance, management structure, risk process, third-party oversight, incident, or materiality assessment conclusion. It is therefore non-substantive boilerplate rather than one of the core disclosure categories.


reasoning: This paragraph is executive biographical information about a business and manufacturing leader, not a substantive cybersecurity disclosure. It does not address board oversight, management cyber roles, cyber risk processes, third-party cyber risk, incidents, or cyber-related business impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including what happened, what data was affected, and the company's response timeline. Its focus is the nature, scope, and notification steps of the Vendor Incident, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident involving AMCA and the resulting litigation and regulatory inquiries, so its primary purpose is to disclose what happened. The specific date and named third party make the paragraph externally verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes management-level cybersecurity organization and qualifications by identifying ISC membership and the relevant experience of the CIO and Director of IT Security, Risk and Compliance. Although it mentions cybersecurity activities, those appear as examples of management experience rather than a description of the company’s cyber program.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes management’s cybersecurity leadership structure, responsibilities, reporting line, and the qualifications of the CSO. Its focus is who in management is responsible and how that role is positioned, rather than the underlying cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes oversight flow: the Risk Committee provides assurance to management and the Board regarding identified risks and mitigating controls. Although it references cybersecurity risk management activities, the main point is the committee-to-board governance structure rather than the operational process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company evaluates and monitors cybersecurity risks posed by vendors and other third parties before and during engagement. Although it discusses cyber-related due diligence and monitoring, it does so in generic terms without firm-specific roles, named programs, technologies, dates, or other qualifying specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes cybersecurity program activities: monitoring systems, deploying security measures, conducting audits, and maintaining an incident response plan. Although it mentions the SVP IT, that role serves mainly as the owner of the process rather than the focus of the paragraph.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does, including assessments, training, phishing tests, incident response, backups, and other operational controls. Although it mentions third-party assessments and cyber insurance, those are components of the broader cybersecurity program rather than the paragraph's central focus.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity, including committee-level responsibilities and escalation of material incidents. Although it mentions management updates, the main focus is the board oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to handle cybersecurity, focusing on the Head of Global IT, the IT Security Team, and their responsibilities and qualifications. Although it mentions acquisition-target diligence, that activity is presented as part of management’s role rather than as the central topic of third-party risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to oversee cybersecurity, emphasizing the CIO's responsibility and experience rather than detailing specific security processes or board oversight. It focuses on leadership roles, supervision, and qualifications, which fits Management Role.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity risk is incorporated into the company's broader risk management and annual assessment processes. Although it mentions the Audit Committee's oversight of ERM, the main focus is the process for identifying and managing cybersecurity-related risks rather than board oversight structure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity event, including when it occurred, what systems were affected, investigatory findings, and the outcome. Although it notes the incident was not material, the dominant focus is the incident itself rather than broader business strategy or financial assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company evaluates and manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party vendors, making vendor oversight the central topic. It describes a vendor due diligence process and review of vendors' information security practices, which is cybersecurity-specific but not firm-unique or externally verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states the company's materiality assessment that cybersecurity threats and prior incidents have not materially affected, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, its business strategy, results, or financial condition. The remaining language is speculative cautionary language and a cross-reference, which do not change the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily answers whether cybersecurity threats have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's business, operations, or financial condition. Although it mentions an Incident Response Team, the dominant content is the materiality assessment and the conclusion that no such material effects have been identified.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily addresses what the company does to mitigate cybersecurity incidents by stating it develops and maintains systems and programs for that purpose. However, it remains highly general and mostly consists of broad risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors rather than describing concrete cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-style business assessment that the company had not experienced material cybersecurity incidents as of a stated date, which falls under Strategy Integration. Although it also mentions threats, policies, and insurance, those are secondary to the overall impact/materiality framing.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers and business partners, making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It describes generic vendor-risk oversight practices rather than board oversight, management organization, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to handle cybersecurity through a named management-level committee and its responsibilities. Although it mentions reporting to the Audit Committee and Board, the main focus is the Cyber ERM Committee’s role in incident response and escalation.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cyber oversight structure across management, board, and assurance functions, which makes it a board-governance disclosure. Although management roles are mentioned, the main purpose is to explain the governance chain and lines of defense.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized activity, response actions, operational disruption, and resolution. Although it mentions lack of material financial impact, the dominant focus is what happened and how the company responded.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk arising from vendors and service providers, including required security controls and compliance assessments. Although it mentions threat intelligence services, the central focus is third-party oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity-related risks are incorporated into the company's enterprise risk management and audit planning processes, which is about how risk is identified and managed. Although it mentions the Audit Committee and reporting lines, those references are secondary to the ERM process description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company’s cybersecurity program operates by using external specialists for incident response, assessments, and firewall-related support. Although it mentions evaluating and monitoring service providers, the main focus is the use of third parties as part of the company’s cyber risk management activities rather than vendor risk oversight as a standalone topic.


reasoning: This paragraph describes actions taken in connection with an actual cybersecurity incident, including ongoing engagement with law enforcement and regulators and customer remediation measures. The specific offer of two years of identity protection services is a concrete, externally checkable fact.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and external platforms, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor-focused controls such as pre-acquisition diligence, contractual obligations, performance monitoring, and SOC Reports.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a business-impact/materiality assessment, including the statement that the company has not experienced material adverse events from cybersecurity issues to date and describing potential operational and financial reporting effects. Although it mentions system protection generally, it does not substantively describe cybersecurity governance or risk-management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes generic oversight measures such as annual reviews, contractual safeguards, and report reviews, but does not provide firm-specific or externally verifiable details.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to address cybersecurity by describing the CRO, CIO, and CISO's responsibilities and qualifications. Although it mentions cybersecurity programs and strategy implementation, the dominant focus is on management roles, experience, and reporting responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk from third-party service providers, including pre-engagement assessments, contractual requirements, and post-engagement audits. It is firm-specific because it identifies a named internal function, ITAS, involved in the vendor oversight process.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company relies on and evaluates third-party service providers and consulting firms in connection with cybersecurity, making third-party risk the central topic. Although it also includes a materiality conclusion, most of the paragraph focuses on third-party involvement and expectations.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity incidents have not had a material impact on the company's business strategy, financial condition, or results of operations. This fits Strategy Integration under the SEC-specific rule for negative assertions about material effect.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a materiality-oriented assessment of cybersecurity's impact on the company, including the statement that it has not experienced any material cybersecurity events to date. The rest is largely speculative risk language and a cross-reference to risk factors, not a description of governance, management, or operational processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes which management roles and teams are responsible for cybersecurity, emphasizing the CISO and identified internal groups rather than the underlying security activities. It is firm-specific because it names distinctive internal roles and teams, but it does not provide externally verifiable quantities, dates, or certifications.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks posed by vendors and other third-party service providers through assessments, monitoring, and contractual requirements. Although it mentions an external penetration-testing evaluation, the dominant focus is oversight of third-party providers.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from third-party service providers, including vendor review, contractual requirements, and reassessments. Its focus is vendor oversight rather than the company's broader internal cybersecurity program.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to a board committee and the full board, which is board oversight structure. The focus is not on management’s operational role or the cybersecurity program itself, but on governance and reporting up to the board.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the board oversees cybersecurity risk—stating that the full Board retains oversight and receives updates from management. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or externally verifiable details beyond generic board oversight language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was disclosed, what system context was involved, and the nature of the exposure. Although it opens with general threat language, the central focus is the specific 2023 breach event.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily gives a materiality-style business impact assessment: it states that the company has not experienced a cybersecurity incident with a material adverse impact to date and discusses potential effects on business, financial condition, and results of operations. The rest of the language is forward-looking and impact-focused rather than describing governance, management, or cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company manages cybersecurity risks posed by vendors and service providers, including due diligence, contractual controls, and incident notification obligations. It does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable details, but it uses cybersecurity-specific third-party risk management concepts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors, including vendor risk assessments and cybersecurity-related contractual requirements. Although it contains no firm-unique or externally verifiable facts, it uses cybersecurity-specific third-party risk management concepts, supporting a Domain-Adapted rating.


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


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risks arising from vendors and service providers, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor-focused cyber controls such as security questionnaires, review of vendor security programs, and contractual cybersecurity obligations, but does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about a real cybersecurity event, describing when it occurred, what happened, and the company's response, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. Although it also includes materiality and risk-impact language, those points are secondary to the incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily presents forward-looking risk and cautionary language about increasing cyber threats and potential impacts, then points readers to the Risk Factors section. Although it briefly mentions regular testing of an incident response plan, the main purpose is not to describe the company's cybersecurity program or governance.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity risk, including delegation and information flow through a board committee, which is board governance. Its main purpose is not to describe management's operational role or the cybersecurity program itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's cybersecurity program activities—enterprise processes, policies and standards, and monitoring of relevant laws and guidance used to assess, identify, and manage cyber risks and incidents. It is not focused on board oversight, management structure, or a specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes management-level responsibility and reporting lines: the CSO’s awareness obligations and communication to the CIO and senior management. Although it references cybersecurity activities like monitoring and remediation, those are presented in support of the CSO’s role rather than as a standalone process description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality assessment, stating that cybersecurity incidents have not materially affected the company and are not reasonably likely to materially affect its business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. That is a Strategy Integration disclosure under the SEC materiality-focused rules.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity risk through receiving reports and incident communications, which is board-level oversight. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or externally verifiable details beyond generic governance mechanics.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was discovered, what happened, and the company's response, which makes Incident Disclosure the best fit. Although it also discusses potential business impacts, those statements are secondary to the real-event narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about contractual cybersecurity obligations imposed on the Custodian and its critical vendors, making third-party risk the central topic. It describes vendor-related security requirements and incident notification duties rather than the company’s internal governance or broader risk management program.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes management leadership qualifications and background, specifically the CIO’s and CISO’s experience, prior roles, and credentials. It is about who manages cybersecurity and why they are qualified, not about board oversight or operational cyber processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board and its committee oversee cybersecurity-related risk and how information flows from management to the board. Although it mentions management roles, those details are included to explain the board’s oversight structure rather than management’s organization.


reasoning: This paragraph is only a cross-reference to Risk Factors disclosures elsewhere in the 10-K and does not itself describe cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party risk, an incident, or a substantive materiality assessment. Under the rules, such cross-references are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a general statement of commitment and shared responsibility for protecting information, not a substantive description of board oversight, management structure, or cybersecurity processes. It does not explain how cybersecurity is governed or managed in practice.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight structure for cybersecurity, especially the Board Risk Committee’s ultimate responsibility and the reporting flow up to board-level bodies. Although it mentions management actors, those details mainly support the governance chain rather than describing management organization or program activities.


reasoning: This paragraph is a forward-looking cautionary statement about potential cybersecurity incidents and a cross-reference to Risk Factors, not a substantive description of governance, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy assessment. It contains no qualifying cybersecurity-specific facts beyond generic risk language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily frames cybersecurity in relation to the company's broader business strategy, digital transformation, and operational impact rather than describing governance, management roles, or specific security processes. It also includes a company-distinct strategic reference ('21st Century Security' vision), making it more than generic industry boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company's cybersecurity program is designed and informed by external frameworks, which is a risk management process topic. Although it names FFIEC and NIST, those references reflect cybersecurity domain vocabulary rather than firm-unique or externally verifiable facts about the company.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company approaches cybersecurity risks arising from vendors, service providers, and other third parties, making third-party risk the central topic. It does not provide any concrete cybersecurity practices, named roles, committees, frameworks, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: This paragraph describes how cybersecurity information flows from the Audit Committee and management to the full Board, which is board oversight structure. It contains no qualifying specific facts beyond generic board and committee references.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity program activities and controls—technical safeguards, monitoring, access controls, vulnerability assessments, and threat intelligence—so it is about how cyber risk is managed. It does not focus on board oversight, management structure, third-party risk, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, stating that ransomware actors may have exfiltrated personal information and that the company provided required notifications. Its primary purpose is to explain what happened and the response, which fits Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes who in management is responsible for cybersecurity and how that responsibility is organized, rather than detailing the substantive cybersecurity program itself. The Vice President of IT & Digitization is a firm-specific management role, which raises specificity above generic or merely domain-adapted language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily introduces the company's cybersecurity risk management approach by describing proactive measures to safeguard systems and data. It contains only high-level, generic language and no qualifying firm-specific or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides an assessment of whether cybersecurity incidents have materially affected the company and discusses possible financial exposure and insurance coverage, which fits Strategy Integration. It does not describe a specific incident, governance structure, or concrete cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows from management to board-level oversight bodies, especially the Audit Committee and its relationship to the board. Although it mentions the CISO and a management committee, the main purpose is explaining board oversight structure rather than management organization or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-oriented assessment of how cybersecurity incidents could affect the company's business, strategy, results of operations, and financial condition, including the explicit statement that it has not experienced a materially affecting cybersecurity incident as of the filing date. The rest of the paragraph is largely general risk framing and cross-reference language rather than describing governance, management, or operational cyber processes.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes how management is organized to handle cybersecurity, including reporting lines, leadership responsibilities, and the qualifications of the CISO. Although it mentions escalation to the board, the central focus is management roles and credentials rather than board oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's process for identifying and evaluating cybersecurity risks through periodic and event-driven risk assessments, which is a risk management activity. However, it uses generic assessment language without concrete cybersecurity-specific tools, frameworks, roles, or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains the escalation and oversight structure for cybersecurity incidents, including when the Board of Managers is informed and updated on material incidents. Although management roles are mentioned, the main thrust is how incident information flows to the board for oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company manages cybersecurity risk from vendors and service providers, including assessments and contractual requirements imposed on those providers. While it uses cybersecurity-specific concepts such as security questionnaires and vulnerability scans, it does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes which member of management is responsible for overseeing cybersecurity, making it about management organization rather than the substance of the cybersecurity program. It provides only a generic role assignment and cross-reference, without cybersecurity-specific or verifiable detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages risks arising from third-party service providers and outsourcing arrangements, making third-party risk the central topic. References to the Board and CIO are secondary to the description of the vendor management oversight structure.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section and does not describe any substantive cybersecurity governance, management, process, incident, third-party oversight, or strategy assessment. Under the rules, cross-references pointing elsewhere are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: Although the paragraph opens with Board oversight, most of the text describes what the cybersecurity program does: integration into ERM, use of recognized frameworks, and a cross-functional approach to identifying, preventing, mitigating, remediating, and responding to cyber threats. The named NIST and ISO frameworks show cybersecurity domain knowledge, but the paragraph does not include firm-unique or externally verifiable facts.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it occurred, the operational disruption it caused, and the company’s response and remediation steps. Although it also mentions post-incident investment and leadership changes, the dominant focus is the real cyber-attack and its consequences.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to handle cybersecurity by focusing on the Director of Information Security’s qualifications, responsibilities, and coordination with internal teams. Although it also references cybersecurity activities, the central emphasis is on management leadership structure and role execution.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about how the company oversees cybersecurity risks arising from vendors, service providers, and other external parties, which squarely fits Third-Party Risk. It does not provide cybersecurity-specific methods, named programs, firms, roles, or verifiable details, so it remains generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains the mechanism used to assess, identify, and manage cybersecurity risk—an enterprise information security program—so it is best classified as Risk Management Process. Although it names management roles, those roles are presented in support of describing the program rather than focusing on management organization itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes what the company's cybersecurity program does in responding to incidents—its incident response plan, evidence handling, communication channels, and severity-based handling protocols. It is not about board oversight or management structure, but about operational response processes.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s incident response and breach management process, including the four-step workflow for identifying, assessing, containing, recovering from, and reviewing cybersecurity incidents. Although it also mentions management oversight and reporting to a board committee, those references are secondary to the operational process description.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company oversees cybersecurity risks posed by third-party service providers, including pre-engagement assessments and post-engagement monitoring. Although it mentions internal roles, those details support the vendor oversight topic rather than describing management organization more broadly.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes how cybersecurity information flows to the Board and Audit Committee, which is board-level oversight. It does not provide substantive detail about management organization, program activities, or any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes general cybersecurity measures the company undertakes—investing in cybersecurity and adapting internal controls and processes to protect systems and information. It does not provide a materiality assessment or concrete business impact, so it fits risk management process rather than strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company evaluates and manages cybersecurity-related risks from vendors, including review of vendors with access to customer information or the network and contractual confidentiality requirements. It is centered on third-party oversight rather than the company’s internal cyber program more broadly.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the board's general oversight of enterprise risk and management's role in assessing risk exposure, but it does not specifically address cybersecurity oversight, management, processes, third-party risk, incidents, or business impact. The content is generic governance boilerplate rather than substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how management is organized to run cybersecurity, identifying the responsible executives, the management committee, and its composition and responsibilities. Although it mentions information flow to senior management and the Board, the main focus is management structure rather than board oversight.


reasoning: This paragraph primarily describes a real cybersecurity event, including its timing, nature, response, and operational effects, which makes it an incident disclosure. It also includes a concrete incident timeframe and specific consequences, supporting a quantified-verifiable specificity level.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the board oversees cybersecurity risk, including delegation of oversight responsibility from the board to the audit committee. It does not provide qualifying specific facts beyond generic governance structure and high-level oversight language.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how the company evaluates, contracts with, and monitors vendors that may access sensitive data or systems, making third-party cyber risk the central topic. It describes vendor due diligence, contractual requirements, and ongoing monitoring rather than the broader internal cybersecurity program.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident and the company’s response actions, which makes Incident Disclosure the primary category. It is not a hypothetical risk discussion or general process description.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides a materiality-oriented assessment that prior cyber-incidents have not had a material impact on the company’s business information systems or operations, which fits Strategy Integration. Although it also mentions threat types and disaster recovery, those are secondary to the business-impact conclusion.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the existence and general orientation of the company's information security program, including that it is integrated into operations and uses a cross-functional approach. It does not provide substantive board oversight, management structure, third-party risk, incident details, or a material business impact assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes cybersecurity program activities—audits, penetration testing, and recurring risk assessments—even though it also mentions the management committee responsible for oversight. Under the person-removal test, substantial process detail remains, so Risk Management Process is the best fit.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing the reader to risk factors elsewhere rather than providing substantive cybersecurity disclosure. It does not describe governance, management, processes, third-party risk management, an actual incident, or a materiality assessment conclusion.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic statement that the company may face cybersecurity risks and that security is important to the business, but it does not describe oversight, management roles, actual risk-management processes, third-party risk practices, an incident, or a materiality assessment. It is therefore non-substantive cybersecurity boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a general introductory statement about reliance on technology and associated security risks, but it does not describe governance, management roles, risk processes, third-party oversight, an actual incident, or a business-impact assessment. It is therefore best classified as non-substantive cybersecurity boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing the reader to Item 1A for discussion of cybersecurity risks rather than describing governance, management, processes, third-party risk management, an incident, or a business-impact assessment itself. Under the rules, pure cross-references are classified as None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily explains how the company manages cybersecurity risk arising from third-party service providers by evaluating their security measures and requiring breach reporting. It is not about the company's internal cyber program generally, but about vendor-related cyber oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management is organized for cybersecurity, centering on the CISO’s leadership, responsibilities, and qualifications. Although it mentions security activities, the main thrust is the management role and structure rather than the operational process itself.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the board oversees cybersecurity through receiving reports and notes board-level expertise, which is a governance topic. The named board member with IT expertise is a company-specific fact, but the rest of the paragraph is otherwise generic.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes that the company has processes and a cybersecurity program in place to assess, identify, and manage cybersecurity risks. Although third-party service providers are mentioned, the central topic is the existence of the overall cybersecurity risk management process rather than vendor-specific oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity through discussions, updates, and consideration of cyber risks in Board meetings. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or verifiable facts beyond generic governance language and cadence.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company’s cybersecurity program operates, including external assessment, threat landscape input, and support for controls and breach response. Although third parties are mentioned, they are serving the company’s internal security program rather than being the subject of vendor risk oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about how cybersecurity risks from third-party vendors are evaluated, reviewed, contractually addressed, and monitored, making third-party risk the central topic. It includes a company-specific fact tied to Onex Corp., but lacks hard quantified or independently verifiable details such as named standards, dates, products, or numbers.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the Board's oversight of cybersecurity as part of the company's broader risk management structure, which fits board-level governance. The remaining discussion is high-level and generic, without concrete cybersecurity-specific roles, frameworks, committees, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s cybersecurity risk management activities and how they are integrated into enterprise risk management, business continuity, and system restoration efforts. Although it mentions the CISO and Board oversight, those references are secondary to the description of the program’s processes and operations.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily states management’s conclusion that cybersecurity incidents have not materially adversely affected the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, which is a Strategy Integration assessment under the materiality rule. The remaining discussion about general threats and continued investment is secondary and framed at a high level.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference directing readers to Item 1A risk factors rather than describing the company's cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party oversight, incident, or strategy. Its discussion of potential adverse consequences is hypothetical and boilerplate, so it does not constitute a substantive Item 1C cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity and receive information from management and an advisor, which is board-level oversight. Although it mentions information security programs and audits, the content is largely generic governance boilerplate without qualifying firm-specific or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily provides management's conclusion about whether cybersecurity threats have had or are reasonably likely to have a material effect on the company's business, operations, or financial condition, which is a strategy/materiality assessment. It does not describe governance, management roles, or specific cybersecurity processes.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to risk factors and contains only hypothetical, forward-looking statements about possible adverse consequences from cybersecurity threats. It does not describe actual governance, management, processes, third-party risk management practices, incidents, or a materiality assessment conclusion.


reasoning: This paragraph is primarily a cross-reference to risk factors and includes hypothetical adverse-effect language rather than describing actual cybersecurity governance, management, processes, third-party oversight, incidents, or a materiality assessment conclusion. Under the rules, cross-references and generic speculative risk language fall into None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the Board and its Audit Committee oversee cybersecurity and information security risks, making board-level oversight the central topic. It does not provide qualifying firm-specific or verifiable facts beyond generic governance and ERM language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how management organizes incident-response participation by drawing members from specific internal functions, which is about management structure and team composition rather than the substantive cybersecurity process itself. Its specificity is firm-specific because it identifies a distinctive cross-functional set of participating departments.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the oversight and reporting chain for cybersecurity matters—from management briefings to the CEO/CFO, escalation to the audit committee, and reporting onward to the board—so it is chiefly about board oversight. Although it mentions management actors, the main purpose is explaining how cybersecurity information flows upward for governance.