reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on assessing the material impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts (e.g., dates, names, numbers) and is boilerplate language about materiality.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (creating a communication website) during a cybersecurity incident, which fits Incident Disclosure as it references a real event in an 8-K Item 1.05 filing. It contains one specific fact (the URL), making it Firm-Specific, but not enough for Quantified-Verifiable as only one hard fact is present.

provider: xiaomi

stage: benchmark


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No specific facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate as it contains no named entities, dates, or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the material impact and financial evaluation of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts (e.g., dates, names, numbers) and uses standard boilerplate language, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (manual processing and alternative channels) during system restoration, which is part of incident response disclosure. No specific dates, names, or verifiable facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one fact.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material financial impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains a specific date period ('fourth quarter of 2023'), making it Firm-Specific.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for monitoring and mitigating cybersecurity risks, such as continuous IT network development, which is central to risk management. It lacks any specific details like dates, names, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including strategy components like CIS Controls and risk assessments, with the Technology Committee mentioned as a specific governance element, making it Risk Management Process and Firm-Specific due to the named committee.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, including threat intelligence, security layers, training, and third-party assessments, which directly aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It names recognized standards (NIST, ISO) but contains no firm-specific facts, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, which directly fits the Incident Disclosure category as it references a real event with details on when it was detected.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the impact and scope of a cybersecurity incident, including affected systems and duration, referencing a real event, which aligns with Incident Disclosure; it lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for incident evaluation, escalation, and business continuity planning, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It mentions the CSO, a cybersecurity-specific role, making it Firm-Specific due to this unique fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (interim measures and restoration timeline) for a cybersecurity incident, referencing a specific press release date and named systems, which directly relates to incident disclosure under Item 1.05.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Risk Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Risk Committee as a named non-generic committee, making it Board Governance and Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including governance, safeguards, incident response, and third-party risk, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains specific cybersecurity roles (CIO and Global Head of IT Security), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (notifying regulatory authorities and working with law enforcement) related to an unauthorized access incident, which directly references a real event and fits Incident Disclosure. It contains the specific fact 'Targus', a named entity involved in the incident, making it Firm-Specific as it identifies something unique to this disclosure.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and potential financial impacts without describing any specific incident, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains the specific date 'fiscal 2024', which is a firm-specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact, so not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's Cybersecurity Program, including policies, procedures, and administration, which aligns with internal risk management processes. It contains a specific fact (named IT Steering Committee) that identifies something unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including security controls aligned with NIST CSF, which is a named standard, but it does not focus on board governance, management roles, incidents, or third-party risk as the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses general cybersecurity risks, potential business impacts, and materiality assessments without describing any specific incident or internal processes, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including management roles, third-party collaboration, monitoring, and vendor risk evaluation, which aligns with Risk Management Process rather than being solely focused on third-party risk or management roles.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph centrally describes outsourcing primary cybersecurity responsibility to a third-party firm, including team roles and management oversight, which aligns with Third-Party Risk; it contains specific facts like cybersecurity-specific titles and certifications, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including third-party risk as one component, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the internal management team's composition and activities in cybersecurity risk management, with brief mention of board oversight, aligning with Management Role; the specific team composition is a firm-specific fact per the IS list.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Chief Information Officer's role, qualifications, and responsibilities, which is the main grammatical subject and aligns with Management Role. It contains specific facts like the cybersecurity-specific title (CIO) and named certifications, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity risk management elements, such as defense layers, information sharing, and supplier engagement, without referencing any specific incidents, management roles, or verifiable details, making it clearly Risk Management Process and Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes and program, with no board or management subject, no incident description, and no firm-specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including framework adoption and specific measures, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains firm-specific facts such as a named cybersecurity role (VP of IT) and a recognized standard (NIST), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily focuses on the management roles of the CISO and CTO, detailing their specific experiences and responsibilities, which aligns with Management Role. It contains two hard verifiable facts (named firms IBM and Axway), meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential business and financial impacts of cybersecurity risks, including materiality assessments, without describing a specific incident or providing firm-specific details, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no named frameworks, dates, or other verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including the Agility Plan, incident response policies, and CMT composition, with no specific incident described or central third-party risk topic.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including collaborative approaches, technical safeguards, incident response, third-party risk management, and training, but contains no specific details, frameworks, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including assessment, training, monitoring, and incident response, with board oversight and management roles as supporting elements; no specific incident is disclosed, and it contains firm-specific facts such as the head of information security reporting to the CFO and holding CISSP certification.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal risk management processes, including use of the NIST Framework, software programs, and plans, without focusing on board governance, management roles, incidents, or third-party risk.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's technology dependencies and general cyber risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it relates to the company's internal risk context, but it does not describe specific processes, incidents, or board/management roles. No specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including monitoring, incident response planning, and engagement with external experts, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific facts such as named firms, dates, or unique programs are present, and it does not name any recognized standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity processes, such as monitoring, encryption, and third-party risk management, which is the core of Risk Management Process; it lacks any specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including governance, technical safeguards, incident response, and third-party risk management, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains specific facts like CISO roles and departmental composition but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily discusses the Board of Directors and Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the grammatical subjects being board entities, fitting Board Governance. No specific facts from the IS list remain after filtering, and it lacks named standards or hard verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, tools, and strategy for 2025, with no board or management focus, and includes a specific policy detail (24-hour notification), so it is Risk Management Process with Firm-Specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality of cybersecurity incidents, stating they have not had a material impact to date and providing forward-looking disclaimers, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It lacks any specific incident narrative, dates, or firm-specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity measures and processes, such as safeguards, incident response plans, and training, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific incidents, roles, or verifiable details are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily identifies management roles and their qualifications, with specific individuals named and quantified years of experience, fitting the Management Role category; it contains multiple hard verifiable facts (e.g., specific years of experience) for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, fitting Risk Management Process, and contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, such as the information security program, monitoring, policies, and engagement with external firms, with Board oversight mentioned as context. The specific fact 'Risk Committee of the Board of Directors' identifies a non-generic committee unique to this disclosure, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily discusses materiality assessments and forward-looking statements about cybersecurity risks, without describing specific incidents or internal processes, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details unique to CoreCivic, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses business and financial impacts, materiality assessments, and potential costs of cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains a specific date (December 31, 2024), which is a fact from the IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on USCF's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including annual risk assessments and third-party due diligence, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains no specific dates, named frameworks, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk management program, including named policy and committee, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it is Firm-Specific due to the named internal program and committee, but not Quantified-Verifiable as it lacks hard verifiable facts like dates or amounts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CISO and CCO) and their responsibilities in cybersecurity, which aligns with Management Role category. It contains specific facts such as the CCO's 10-year tenure and CISSP certification, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including monitoring, frameworks, and vendor evaluation, with no board or incident focus, making Risk Management Process the most applicable category. It contains a specific fact (ISRC committee) that identifies something unique to this company, justifying Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including policies and resource allocation, without describing any specific incidents or named entities, making it most applicable to Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CTO, CIO, CISO) and their expertise, with reporting to the Board as secondary, aligning with Management Role category; it contains multiple specific years of experience, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including risk assessment, framework adoption, monitoring, and leadership review, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains specific cybersecurity roles (CIO and CISO), which are on the ✓ IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CTO's role, qualifications, and an internal management committee, fitting Management Role. It contains hard verifiable facts like 30 years experience and named certifications (CISM, CISSP), meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, including policies, committees, and controls, without referencing specific incidents or verifiable details, fitting Risk Management Process with generic specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's incident response plan, roles, and engagement with third parties, which aligns with internal risk management processes; it contains specific cybersecurity roles (CISO, CIO) making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the management role of the CEO in overseeing cybersecurity, with specific details about his background including named firms and exact date ranges, making it Management Role and Quantified-Verifiable due to multiple hard facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including a named incident response plan, which aligns with Risk Management Process; the named program ICSIRP makes it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including oversight by the Board and management, policies, and investments, without referencing specific incidents, named entities, or verifiable facts, fitting the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including oversight by the board and management, without referencing any specific incidents or third-party risks, making Risk Management Process the most applicable category. The mention of 'Director of IT' is a cybersecurity-specific title, qualifying it as Firm-Specific, but there are no additional hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for risk assessment, incident response, and integration with overall risk management, with mention of a specific management role; it does not describe a specific incident or focus solely on board governance or third-party risk.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's incident response plan, testing, and coordination with internal teams, which is central to internal risk management processes; it contains no specific incidents, board oversight, or third-party risk as the main focus. No specific facts or named standards are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for risk assessment, vendor management, and incident response, with no emphasis on board governance, management roles, or specific incidents, making Risk Management Process the most applicable category. The mention of the FAIR model is a specific fact that identifies a unique tool used by the company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including subsidiary security programs, incident reporting, team composition, and escalation procedures, with no focus on board oversight or specific incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses exclusively on vendor oversight and third-party cybersecurity risk management, which is the central topic, and contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including policies, audits, and controls, which directly aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No specific incidents, board oversight, or management roles are mentioned, and the content contains no verifiable facts or named standards, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer about an incident, with no description of the incident or substantive disclosure, so it falls under None/Other. It contains no specific facts or details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific details including the date, unauthorized access, exfiltration of files, and response actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one fact.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, with management reporting to the board, which aligns with Board Governance. It includes cybersecurity-specific roles (CIO, CISO), making it Firm-Specific due to these unique titles.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal disaster recovery and incident response plans, team composition, and assessments, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains specific facts like the CIO role and named CMT, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with details on dates, scope of data accessed, and a compensation program, fitting Incident Disclosure; it contains multiple hard verifiable facts like dates and monetary amounts, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity, with the CTO mentioned as a management role, but the grammatical subject is board-related entities, making Board Governance the most applicable category. Specificity is Firm-Specific due to the mention of the CTO, a cybersecurity-specific role unique to the company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with detailed dates, scope, and response actions, directly fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains two hard verifiable facts (specific dates), meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with dates, unauthorized access, response actions, and scope, which directly matches Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (May 1, 2024), which is a verifiable fact from the ✓ IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion stating no incidents have materially affected the company, with no incident description, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal process for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains no specific details, dates, names, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses insurance coverage and materiality assessments without describing any incident, which fits Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains one specific fact (the year 2023), making it Firm-Specific, but only one hard fact prevents Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with dates, access details, and response actions, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. The specific date (May 11, 2025) is a verifiable fact that makes it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on senior management's responsibilities in recommending cybersecurity risk appetite metrics to the Board, making management the grammatical subject and aligning with Management Role. No specific facts like dates, names, or numbers are present, and it uses generic language without named frameworks or unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph's main focus is on management roles (CISO, CIO, CTO) and their reporting lines to the CEO, with brief mention of board oversight, aligning with the Management Role category per tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including management roles and third-party risk management, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it is not focused on board governance, incidents, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for investigating cybersecurity threats, including steps like isolation and employing advisors, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts such as named roles, dates, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity processes, such as safeguards and incident response planning, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, named frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity program and risk management processes, including assessments, training, and third-party oversight, without referencing board governance, management roles, or specific incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's current lack of formal cybersecurity policies and personnel, which is about internal risk management processes, not board oversight, incidents, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for audits, risk assessments, and remediation reviewed by management and the board, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts like named firms, dates, or numbers, and all roles mentioned are generic or standard, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management program for overseeing third-party service providers, which is a core aspect of Risk Management Process. No specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or roles are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal training program, which is a component of risk management processes, and contains no specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process of using third-party providers as part of cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific facts, dates, named firms, or standards are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal procedures for managing cybersecurity risks, including policies and training, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It does not mention board oversight, management roles, specific incidents, or financial impacts, and contains no verifiable specific facts after filtering.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management's roles and responsibilities in cybersecurity, with the grammatical subject being management roles, and no board oversight mentioned, so Management Role is appropriate. It contains no specific dates, names, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board-level Risk Committee's oversight of cybersecurity, making Board Governance the most applicable category, and it contains a specific named committee (Risk Committee), which is a firm-specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's incident response plan, which is an internal risk management process, and contains no specific details like dates, named roles, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph explains why the company does not face cybersecurity risks due to being a blank check company with no operations, which is a non-substantive disclaimer with no disclosure of cybersecurity practices, incidents, or governance, fitting None/Other; no specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO and VP of Information Security's roles and experience, making Management Role the most applicable category. It contains cybersecurity-specific titles and specific experience years, which are unique facts to this company's disclosure, justifying Firm-Specific specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Audit Committee, a board committee, focusing on oversight of cybersecurity risks and incident response planning, which aligns with Board Governance. No specific facts remain after filtering, as 'Audit Committee' is a standard committee and company references are not considered specific for specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on internal processes for vendor onboarding oversight through team engagement in PMO and VMO routines, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cybersecurity risk, with the board as the grammatical subject, and contains no specific details such as dates, names, or frameworks that would make it firm-specific or sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph directly addresses the company's internal risk management processes by disclosing their absence, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific facts such as named entities, dates, or standards, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's cybersecurity strategy and risk management priorities, such as detection, analysis, response, and resilience, which aligns with internal risk management processes. No specific details, dates, names, or frameworks are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk-based approach to security controls and inherent limitations, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts like named entities, dates, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including objectives, initiatives, and periodic reviews under the CTO's supervision, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains specific facts like the CTO role and a named center, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board of Directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Board Governance as the grammatical subject is the board. No specific facts from the ✓ IS list are present, and it lacks any hard verifiable facts or named standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk management processes, including defense approaches and incident response planning, with no mention of board oversight, management roles, or specific incidents. It contains no named frameworks, dates, roles, or other specific details, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes BlackRock's internal cybersecurity program, including governance, controls, incident response, and third-party risk management, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains specific facts like named roles (CISO, CRO) and committees (TRCC, ERC), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal approach to implementing and prioritizing security controls using a risk-based method, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, dates, specific roles, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion with no incident narrative, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO and other management roles overseeing cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with the Management Role category as the grammatical subject is management roles, not board oversight or internal processes.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion stating no cybersecurity incidents have materially affected the company, with no incident description, which directly maps to Strategy Integration; it contains no specific facts like dates, named roles, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal security processes like training and awareness, which align with risk management, and mentions insurance as an ancillary point; no specific facts such as dates, numbers, or named entities are provided, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking risk statement with cross-references to another section, containing no specific incident, management, governance, or process details, fitting 'None/Other'. It has no verifiable facts like dates, numbers, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, teams, and committees focused on risk management processes, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. It contains specific named committees and a cybersecurity-specific role (CISO), making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CIO, CTO, ISO) as the grammatical subject, aligning with Management Role. It contains specific cybersecurity titles, which are on the IS list, making it Firm-Specific; no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment process, tools, and policies, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It names recognized standards (CIS and FERPA) but contains no unique firm-specific details or hard verifiable facts, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Audit Committee, focusing on board oversight of cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Board Governance. It mentions the CISO, a cybersecurity-specific title, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses engaging third-party service providers to evaluate and improve the cybersecurity program, which is a component of internal risk management processes. It contains no specific details like named frameworks, dates, or entities, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for incident escalation and reporting to management and the audit committee, which is central to risk management. No specific facts remain after filtering generic terms like CEO and CFO, and no named frameworks or hard verifiable details are present.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including vulnerability testing and vendor control reviews, with no specific details or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, such as identification of critical systems, network segmentation, access controls, and patch management, without mentioning board oversight, specific management roles, incidents, or financial impacts. It contains no named standards, specific facts from the IS list, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the responsibilities of the Head of Cybersecurity in monitoring and reporting incidents, with board oversight mentioned as part of the process, making Management Role the appropriate category. It contains the specific fact of a cybersecurity-specific title ('Head of Cybersecurity'), which qualifies it as Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for monitoring, audits, vulnerability testing, and patching, which are core elements of risk management. No specific facts or named standards are present, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph mentions the Board of Directors along with management roles in cybersecurity risk management, with the board explicitly included, fitting Board Governance; it contains the specific cybersecurity role of Chief Information Officer, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph states a standalone materiality conclusion about cybersecurity risks without describing any incident, process, or governance, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity program, policies, and framework adoption, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It includes specific certification claims (HITRUST and SOC 2 Type II), making it Firm-Specific due to these unique disclosure facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal technical safeguards for protecting information systems, which falls under risk management processes. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, including third-party aspects, which is central to Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal ERM process for identifying and mitigating cybersecurity risks, which is a core aspect of risk management processes. No specific facts (e.g., dates, named roles, or frameworks) are present that would elevate specificity beyond generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including engaging third-party assessors and collaborating with experts, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it lacks any specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on dependence on third-party service providers and monitoring associated risks, making vendor oversight the central topic, which aligns with Third-Party Risk. It lacks any specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on third-party procurement and contracting processes, which is central to vendor oversight, aligning with Third-Party Risk. It contains no specific details, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cyber incident response process, including roles and protocols, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains specific cybersecurity roles like CIO and VP Security, making it Firm-Specific, but lacks hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the CISO's role, qualifications, and reporting lines, which aligns with Management Role. It contains specific facts like the cybersecurity-specific title 'CISO' and the named non-generic committee 'Risk Committee', making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the CIO's management role in information security, with the CIO as the grammatical subject, making it Management Role.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Senior Director of Information Technology making presentations, which is a management role, with brief mention of the Audit Committee; it contains a specific cybersecurity title, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on executive management's responsibility for overseeing cybersecurity strategy, which aligns with Management Role as the grammatical subject; it contains no specific details, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, with third-party risk mentioned as one component, but no board or management roles, incidents, or specific details are provided.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Technology Committee, a board committee overseeing cyber risk, fitting Board Governance. It contains a specific fact (named non-generic committee), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the ISO (a management role), focusing on their expertise and training, with specific duration facts (22 years and 18 years) that are hard verifiable, making it Management Role with high specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CCO and CISO roles, their qualifications, and responsibilities, which is characteristic of Management Role; it includes multiple hard verifiable facts such as specific dates and durations, meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential business impacts and risks of cybersecurity attacks without describing any actual incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts and is generic boilerplate language that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes vendor due diligence and contractual requirements, which is central to third-party risk oversight; the materiality statement is a general conclusion not specific to an incident. Specificity is firm-specific due to the mention of 'PSCM', a unique entity in this disclosure, but it lacks multiple hard verifiable facts for quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities of a specific management role (VP of IT and Facilities), which is the grammatical subject, aligning with Management Role. It contains a cybersecurity-specific title from the IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for assessing potential cybersecurity incidents and notifying executives, which is a core aspect of risk management processes, rather than board governance or incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight role, which is a board governance function, and contains no specific details or verifiable facts unique to the company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for cybersecurity awareness, training, and policy reviews, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains no specific facts like dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the management-level Cybersecurity Council, chaired by the CISO, with specific member roles and a named internal program, emphasizing management roles in cybersecurity oversight rather than board governance or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including using third-party consultants and operating a security center, which is central to risk management; no specific facts are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal activities for monitoring and mitigating cybersecurity threats, which aligns with risk management processes, and it lacks any specific facts like named roles, dates, or tools, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses a hypothetical risk assessment process but explicitly states no formal policy exists, making it non-substantive and not aligned with any actual cybersecurity disclosure categories.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks, such as vulnerability monitoring and third-party service reviews, which is central to Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's reporting to the IOC and team structure, making Management Role the primary category. It includes specific facts like the CISO title, named committee (IOC), and team composition, which are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including risk assessments and program components based on NIST standards, with no focus on board oversight, management roles, incidents, or financial impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response policy and cross-functional team process, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts are provided; the policy name and team composition are generic and do not meet the criteria for Firm-Specific or Quantified-Verifiable.