content_category: Board Governance

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight of cybersecurity risks, with no specific incidents, dates, or firm-unique details, making it generic boilerplate aligned with Board Governance.

provider: xiaomi

stage: benchmark


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential cybersecurity risks and includes a standalone materiality conclusion ('have not materially affected us') without describing any specific incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph is a cross-reference to risk factors in another section and contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, fitting the None/Other category for forward-looking disclaimers or cross-references.


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including integration with enterprise risk management and third-party considerations, which is the core of Risk Management Process. It lacks any specific facts such as named roles, dates, frameworks, or unique program identifiers, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Audit Committee, a board committee, focusing on oversight responsibilities, which aligns with Board Governance. It contains specific facts like the named ERM Committee and the CIO role, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion stating that cybersecurity risks have not materially affected the company, with no incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration; it contains no specific facts or named standards, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph centers on requirements imposed on third-party service providers, which is the defining characteristic of Third-Party Risk. It contains no specific facts like named firms, dates, or numbers, and no recognized standards are named, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Audit Committee, a board committee, focusing on its oversight responsibilities, which aligns with Board Governance. It mentions specific cybersecurity roles (CIO and CISO), which are on the ✓ IS list, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity threats, including a team with specific departmental representatives, which aligns with Risk Management Process. The named departments constitute a specific fact that identifies this company's disclosure, making it Firm-Specific.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Information Security Officer's role, reporting line, and qualifications, with the ISO as the grammatical subject, aligning with Management Role. The cybersecurity-specific title 'ISO' is a firm-specific fact, but no hard verifiable facts like exact dates or named firms are present, so it is not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors' oversight responsibility for cybersecurity, with the HSE Director's role mentioned in support, making Board Governance the primary category. It includes specific facts about the HSE Director's title and employment history, which are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including incident response planning, risk assessments, and monitoring, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It lacks any specific details such as named roles, dates, frameworks, or quantifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal information security programs aligned with recognized ISO and NIST frameworks, which falls under risk management processes. It names specific standards but contains no firm-specific details like dates, roles, or quantified data.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board's delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the Audit Committee and reporting from specific management roles, which is governance-related, and it contains cybersecurity-specific titles that identify unique aspects of this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, with the Board as the grammatical subject in the first sentence, aligning with Board Governance; it contains specific cybersecurity roles and a named committee unique to the company, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including cybersecurity integration into ERM and the CISO's role, with no focus on incidents, third-party risk, or financial impact, making Risk Management Process the most applicable category. The mention of the CISO, a cybersecurity-specific title, qualifies as a firm-specific fact, but there are no hard verifiable facts like dates or numbers for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management process for cybersecurity, including integration with ERM, annual assessments, and reporting cadences, which directly aligns with the Risk Management Process category; no board oversight, management roles, or incidents are the focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including framework adoption and departmental collaboration, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains a specific fact about departmental composition, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments and the absence of cybersecurity incidents without describing any real event, which aligns with Strategy Integration; it contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Trustee's internal cyber risk management program, protocols, and third-party assessment, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or entities are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, which is a board governance function, and contains no specific details such as dates, named entities, or quantifiable facts beyond generic governance terms.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for risk identification and assessment, including threat intelligence review and control evaluation, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific details, dates, or named entities are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Board and Audit Committee as grammatical subjects, fitting Board Governance. It contains specific facts like the named Cybersecurity Risk Subcommittee and a headcount of two independent directors, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Cybersecurity Subcommittee as the grammatical subject, fitting Board Governance. It contains specific facts like the named committee and establishment year, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including vulnerability management and an incident response plan based on the NIST framework, which is central to risk management; it does not focus on board governance, management roles, third-party risk, incidents, or strategy integration.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including tools and third-party engagement, without referencing any specific incidents, roles, or verifiable details, making it clearly Risk Management Process and generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for incident response, business continuity, and security training, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific incidents, roles, or verifiable facts are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for handling cybersecurity threats and incidents, including specific roles and committees, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains firm-specific facts such as the Senior Director of Information Security and Technology Risk Management Committee, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality conclusions and risk assessment without describing any specific incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers; no specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the CIO and senior leaders, focusing on their roles in reviewing cybersecurity risks and reporting, which aligns with Management Role. It contains specific facts like the CIO title and ERM Committee, which are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with management roles mentioned secondarily, fitting Board Governance. It includes the specific cybersecurity role of CISO, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Company's internal processes for risk assessments, controls, and framework adoption, which directly aligns with Risk Management Process. It names recognized security standards but contains no unique company details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Board and Audit Committee discussing their oversight of cybersecurity, which aligns with Board Governance. It names the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, but contains no firm-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors and its Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risks and reporting mechanisms, with management involvement as a secondary element, making Board Governance the most applicable category. No specific facts are present, as all references are generic (e.g., 'quarterly reports,' 'outsourced managed service provider' without names), so it is classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's main focus is on the CDIO/CISO's role, experience, reporting line, and activities, which aligns with Management Role; it contains specific facts like the cybersecurity-specific title and a named year, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on assessing third-party provider security standards and imposing requirements on vendors, which is central to Third-Party Risk. No specific facts like dates, named firms, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date (October 2023) and named product (23andMe.com), including scope and response actions, which fits Incident Disclosure. It has two hard verifiable facts, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Director of IT Infrastructure & Security and reporting lines to management and the Board, making Management Role the primary category; it contains multiple firm-specific facts like named roles, programs, and certifications, but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses incident response practices involving management roles, which is a core component of the company's internal risk management process, and no actual incident is described. It lacks any specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risks, with management reporting as a secondary element, making Board Governance the most applicable category. No specific facts are present, as all references (e.g., Audit Committee, management) are generic and could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including policies, assessments, and use of the NIST framework, with no board oversight, management roles, incidents, or third-party risk as the central topic. It names a recognized standard (NIST) but contains no unique firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal training and testing programs for cybersecurity awareness and incident response, which aligns with risk management processes. It contains no specific facts like dates, named programs, or numbers, and does not name any recognized standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity processes, tools, and compliance with standards, which is central to Risk Management Process. It contains a firm-specific fact about ISO 27001 certification, making it more than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident detection and response process, which aligns with Risk Management Process, and it names the NIST CSF framework but contains no firm-specific details or actual incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk management process through the ERM committee, including cybersecurity considerations, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains specific named roles (CISO, CDO) and a named committee, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses standalone materiality conclusions about cybersecurity risks with no incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's qualifications and responsibilities, with the CISO as the grammatical subject, making it Management Role. It contains specific facts like the cybersecurity-specific title and the CISO's education, which are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph briefly mentions a past incident but primarily focuses on materiality conclusions and forward-looking statements about cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains one specific fact (the date of the incident), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including assessments, patch management, and monitoring, which fits Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts like named frameworks, dates, or entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program and named frameworks (NIST, Sarbanes Oxley), which aligns with Risk Management Process. It names recognized standards but contains no unique company-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CISO and Information Security team) with no board mention, fitting Management Role; it contains multiple hard verifiable facts like 17 years of experience and named certifications, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a materiality conclusion for cybersecurity risks during fiscal 2025 without describing specific incidents, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains the specific fact 'fiscal 2025', making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. No specific facts, dates, named standards, or unique details are present, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses internal risk management processes such as employee training and third-party oversight, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it includes firm-specific elements like named programs and departments, but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for risk management, including external expert engagements and employee training, with third-party involvement as a component, not the central topic. No specific details like named frameworks, dates, or entities are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, named product, and details of access and response, fitting Incident Disclosure. Specificity is Quantified-Verifiable due to two hard facts: specific date and named product.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's role, qualifications, and leadership of the ISC, which aligns with Management Role; it contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific years of experience and named certifications), meeting Quantified-Verifiable criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subjects are the Board of Directors and Audit Committee, which are directly involved in overseeing cybersecurity risks, aligning with Board Governance. It contains the specific fact of 'CSO' (a cybersecurity-specific role), making it Firm-Specific, but lacks two hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific details about the timeline, scope, and ongoing actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (date), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, unauthorized access, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date), which is enough for Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable as only one hard fact is present.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's planned internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, including identification, assessment, and treatment of risks, which is the core topic of Risk Management Process. No specific incident, management roles, or verifiable facts are mentioned.


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


reasoning: The paragraph references a risk factor section and discusses general cybersecurity risks and limitations of controls without describing any specific incidents, management roles, board oversight, or internal processes, making it a cross-reference with no substantive disclosure fitting 'None/Other'. It contains no named entities, frameworks, dates, or other specific details, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, unauthorized access, response actions, and remediation, which directly fits Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (March 10, 2024), which is a verifiable fact, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific detection date, response actions, and scope, which matches Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date May 6, 2024), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks using the NIST Framework and ERM program, with no incident or specific roles mentioned, fitting Risk Management Process. It names a recognized standard (NIST) but contains no firm-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph's main focus is on the CISO's role, qualifications, and reporting lines, with brief board oversight mention, aligning with Management Role. It contains specific facts like certifications and date ranges, but only one hard verifiable fact (date range), so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific dates, scope, and response actions, making it Incident Disclosure. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific dates), satisfying the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the VP of IT's responsibilities, qualifications, and reporting lines, with specific details about his role and committee involvement, making Management Role the most applicable category. It contains multiple firm-specific facts like cybersecurity titles, named committee, and exact experience durations, but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific dates and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (August 25, 2025), which is a firm-specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact, so it is not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on material impact and expected costs of an incident without describing the event, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It lacks any specific details like dates, names, or numbers, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to personal information through a third-party provider, including response actions and scope, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. However, it lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate after filtering out non-specific elements.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with details on data exfiltration, engagement of experts, data scope, and client notifications, fitting Incident Disclosure. However, it lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate per specificity rules.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the incident's impact on IT systems, data, and response actions, which fits Incident Disclosure as it references a real event. No specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with dates, unauthorized access details, data scope, and response actions, directly referencing a real event, so it is classified as Incident Disclosure. It contains two hard verifiable facts (specific dates), meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with details on unauthorized access, data exfiltration, temporary limitations, and production halts, which fits Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or quantifiable facts, and after filtering vague language, no specific facts remain, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer about an incident, with no description of the incident, management roles, board oversight, or internal processes; it fits 'None/Other' as it contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure. No specific facts are present, and it does not name any recognized standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope of data affected by a cybersecurity incident (e.g., what data is included/excluded), which directly falls under Incident Disclosure as per the tiebreakers. No hard verifiable facts or specific details from the IS list are present; it uses generic descriptions that could apply to any company's incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with details on data scope, response actions, and regulatory involvement, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific fact (33 million accounts) from the IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, access details, scope, and response actions, clearly fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific after filtering out generic terms like 'third-party security vendors'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with details on exfiltration, threat actor actions, response measures, and operational/financial impact, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific fact ('first quarter of fiscal 2026') from the IS list, making it Firm-Specific, but only one hard fact, so not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an unauthorized access incident, including scope (website offline, delayed communications) and impact on intellectual property, which fits Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, named firms, or verifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the status, impacts, and recovery actions related to a disclosed cyber incident, which aligns with Incident Disclosure, but it lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


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


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial impact and assessment of a cybersecurity incident, including specific cost estimates, without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains a specific dollar amount range, making it Firm-Specific.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific dates, scope (data theft, operational disruptions), and response actions, making it Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date) but no other hard verifiable facts, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact, insurance coverage, and financial implications of the cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses insurance recoveries and material impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It lacks any specific facts such as dates, numbers, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date, unauthorized access details, response actions, and operational impact, directly fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains one specific fact (the date), which qualifies it as Firm-Specific under the decision test.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential material financial impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains multiple specific dates (February 11, 2025; March 31, 2025; June 30, 2025) that are hard verifiable facts, meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material financial impact of the incident on results of operations and earnings without describing the incident event itself, aligning with Strategy Integration; it contains two specific dates (June 30, 2024 and June 19, 2024), which are hard verifiable facts, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including its containment, operational impact, and financial costs with verifiable dates and amounts, fitting the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific dates, threat actor, and response actions, 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, data encryption, and response actions, directly fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (July 10, 2024), which is a firm-specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact, so it is not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses material impact, expected costs, insurance, and long-term effects of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, dollar amounts, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph describes actual incident response actions and restoration timeline for a disclosed cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains the specific fact of restoration in mid-June, which is unique to this company's disclosure, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with dates, affected systems, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure; it contains two hard verifiable facts (specific dates and a named third-party firm), making it Quantified-Verifiable.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real ransomware incident with specific dates and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. The two specific dates (August 21, 2025 and August 16, 2025) are hard verifiable facts, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with unauthorized access, response actions, investigation, and operational impact, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, named firms, or other verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial arrangements (waiver of payments) to fund cybersecurity incident remediation, which is a business/financial impact under Strategy Integration, and it contains multiple hard verifiable facts like specific dates and dollar amounts.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date (June 19, 2024) and a named third-party firm (CDK Global), including scope and operational impact, which directly fits the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with details on access, data exfiltration, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with a specific date, response actions, and scope, which directly fits the Incident Disclosure category. It contains one specific fact (the date May 6, 2024), but not enough for Quantified-Verifiable, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial impacts (revenue delays, loss of revenue, expenses) of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains specific time periods (Q4 2023 and Q1 2024) unique to this company's disclosure, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes investigation, reporting, and impact assessment for a specific cybersecurity incident, fitting Incident Disclosure. However, it contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident detected on March 14, 2024, with details on scope (Canadian operations) 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 is a cross-reference to risk factors in another section of the filing, with no substantive disclosure on cybersecurity governance, management, processes, incidents, or strategies, fitting the 'None/Other' category for cross-references.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cyberattack on Change Healthcare and the company's response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal activities for managing cybersecurity risks, such as monitoring data protection laws and implementing process changes, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No specific facts, dates, or named entities are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, which is central to Board Governance. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments of cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CIO and Information Security Director) with specific qualifications, fitting Management Role; the specific experience years (35 and 25) are two hard verifiable facts, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, including reviews and participation by specific roles, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains specific cybersecurity roles (CISO and CIO), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's lack of material cybersecurity incidents and immaterial expenses, which aligns with Strategy Integration's focus on materiality assessments and financial impact, without describing any actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the audit committee, a board committee, which aligns with Board Governance. No specific facts like dates, named roles, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and risk management processes, led by the Global CISO, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains the specific fact of a cybersecurity-specific role (Global CISO), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Chief Technology Officer, a cybersecurity-specific management role, detailing their responsibilities and reporting lines, which aligns with Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for integrating cybersecurity into risk management systems, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It lacks any specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality conclusions and strategy updates without describing specific incidents, aligning with Strategy Integration. No verifiable facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Adviser's internal procedures for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity incidents, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details such as dates, named roles, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity training, testing, and assessments, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific facts, dates, names, or frameworks are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Mr. Gharib's cybersecurity responsibilities, with Mr. Gharib as the grammatical subject indicating a management role, and contains no specific details like dates, numbers, or named frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk assessment and mitigation processes, which aligns with Risk Management Process, and it contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the chief financial officer, a management role, with brief mention of board updates, so Management Role is appropriate. It names the Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee, which is a specific fact not on the generic list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal risk management processes, including collaboration with the CSO, which aligns with Risk Management Process; the mention of CSO is a cybersecurity-specific title, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subjects are the Board of Directors and its Enterprise Risk Management Committee, focusing on board oversight and delegation, which aligns with Board Governance. The named 'Enterprise Risk Management Committee' is a specific fact from the ✓ IS list, making it Firm-Specific, but no hard verifiable facts like dates or numbers are present.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response escalation processes, which is a core aspect of risk management, not board governance, management roles, or other categories. It contains a specific named committee (Privacy and Security Subcommittee), which qualifies as a firm-specific fact, but no hard verifiable facts like dates or numbers to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses expenditure on cybersecurity risks, cyber insurance costs, and materiality assessments without describing any specific incidents, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, names, or numbers, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors establishing a Cybersecurity Committee for oversight, which is board governance, and it contains two hard verifiable facts: a specific year (2023) and a named certification from a specific institution.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains no specific details like dates, names, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion for 2023 with no incident reference, aligning with Strategy Integration, and contains a specific date (2023) that identifies it as unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors assigning cybersecurity oversight to the Audit Committee, which is a board governance topic. No specific facts (e.g., dates, named roles, or frameworks) are present, and all terms are generic, making it boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is centrally about engaging external experts for risk management, which fits Third-Party Risk as the primary topic, and it contains no specific facts like named firms or dates, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the identification and reporting lines of the CISO and CTO, which are management roles, making it Management Role. It contains cybersecurity-specific titles (CISO, CTO) that are on the ✓ IS list, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of material incidents and immaterial expenses, which is a standalone materiality conclusion without describing any event, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors overseeing cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Board Governance. It names recognized frameworks (NIST and ISO) but contains no company-unique details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's incident response plan, which is an internal risk management process, and it contains no specific facts such as dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight and education activities regarding cybersecurity, with the Board as the grammatical subject, fitting Board Governance. It contains specific cybersecurity roles (CIO, CISO, CIRO) that are unique to this company's disclosure, but no hard verifiable facts like dates or numbers, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on Jack Wang's management role in cybersecurity, with specific details about his position and qualifications, fitting Management Role. It contains firm-specific facts like named person, role, and education, but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying cybersecurity risks, developing strategies, and managing incident escalation, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific facts like dates, names, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO and CTO roles, their experience, and certifications, which is the main topic of management roles, and contains multiple specific facts such as tenure dates, experience numbers, and certifications, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is a cross-reference to another section of the filing and contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, so it falls under None/Other. No specific facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal audit program for assessing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on internal processes. No specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for risk assessment and control improvement using third parties, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific facts like named firms, dates, or details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments of cybersecurity risks and incidents, which aligns with Strategy Integration; it contains a specific date reference, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity processes, including committee meetings, training, and policies, which is Risk Management Process. It contains specific facts like the head of Information Security role and a specific number of policies, meeting the criteria for Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable as the facts are not all from the hard verifiable list.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses exclusively on vendor oversight and third-party risk management, making Third-Party Risk the central topic. It contains no specific facts such as named entities, dates, frameworks, or verifiable details, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on cyber insurance and materiality assessments without describing any specific incident, aligning with Strategy Integration, and contains no unique details, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (Vice President of Information Systems and Chief Financial Officer) and their qualifications, which aligns with Management Role category. It contains specific facts like cybersecurity-specific title and named certifications, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the IT department's responsibilities for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, including monitoring and reporting, which aligns with the company's internal processes topic of Risk Management Process. It contains no named frameworks, specific dates, or verifiable facts, and all details are generic phrases applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on engaging external firms for cybersecurity services, which is the central topic of vendor oversight and third-party risk. It includes a specific fiscal year (2024), which is a verifiable fact from the IS list, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including assessment of third-party cybersecurity risks as a component, which aligns with Risk Management Process rather than Third-Party Risk as the central topic. It contains no specific facts such as named entities, dates, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with no specific details, making it generic boilerplate under Board Governance.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors and Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risks, with the board entities as the grammatical subject, aligning with Board Governance. It contains no specific facts, named frameworks, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the board's delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the audit committee, which is a board governance topic; no specific facts like named roles, dates, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material adverse effects of cybersecurity incidents and the need to expend resources, aligning with Strategy Integration's focus on business impact and resource allocation, but contains no specific details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal security tools, policies, exercises, and training, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own processes for managing cybersecurity risks.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes integrated with Enterprise Risk Management, which is the core focus of the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the board's overall oversight responsibility for cybersecurity risk management, with management roles detailed as part of the governance structure, making Board Governance the most applicable category. It contains a specific fact (Vice President of Operations assigned to cybersecurity duties), but no hard verifiable facts like dates or numbers, so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph lists the company's internal cybersecurity measures and processes, such as incident response plans and risk assessments, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details like dates, named frameworks, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Director of Cybersecurity, a management role, detailing qualifications and reporting lines, fitting Management Role. It contains two hard verifiable facts: a cybersecurity-specific title and a specific experience duration, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's adoption of cybersecurity risk management processes under board oversight, which aligns with the Risk Management Process category. No specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, roles, or details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident detection and response processes, which aligns with Risk Management Process, and it contains no specific facts such as dates, named frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal vulnerability assessment program and risk management processes, with no mention of board oversight, management roles, incidents, or third-party vendors. It contains no specific facts, dates, named frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity measures and processes, such as incident detection and vulnerability management, with no focus on board oversight, management roles, incidents, or vendor risk as the central topic. It contains no specific facts, dates, named frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the material impact and uncertainty of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers for materiality assessments without incident narrative. No specific facts from the IS list or hard verifiable details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with a specific 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 directly describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific date, unauthorized access, data encryption, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date), which qualifies as Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal efforts to implement a recognized cybersecurity framework and align with regulations, which falls under risk management processes; it names the NIST standard but contains no firm-specific details like dates, roles, or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact and expenses of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains a specific date (December 31, 2024), which is a firm-specific fact, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (data access and exfiltration) and response actions (notifications), fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific details like dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific detection date and response actions, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date May 1, 2024), making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for monitoring, assessing, and escalating cybersecurity incidents, which aligns with Risk Management Process; it contains a specific management role (Senior Vice President, IT Operations), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, including insurance, business continuity plans, and testing, which aligns with risk management processes; no specific incident or details are described.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details like detection date, response actions, and containment, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (the date), which is sufficient for Firm-Specific but not enough for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the material impact assessment of the incident (no material impact on operations or financial condition) without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific details such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational impact and scope of a disclosed cybersecurity incident, including specific recovery details and revenue impact, which aligns with Incident Disclosure as per the tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the investigation findings and ongoing response to a cybersecurity incident, which directly fits Incident Disclosure as it references a real event and actions taken. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on processes for overseeing cybersecurity risks from third-party services providers, making Third-Party Risk the most applicable category. It contains no named frameworks, dates, numbers, or specific details, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (contain and remediate) and scope (systems not affected, no transactions) of a referenced cybersecurity incident, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, names, or numbers are provided, and it uses generic language, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific incident with dates (June 2023 and May 2023) and scope (SharePoint files), along with response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific dates and a named product), so specificity is Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer with no substantive cybersecurity content, fitting the None/Other category as it contains no specific details about incidents, governance, or processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the material financial impact and earnings per share estimates of an incident without describing the incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (specific date and dollar amounts), making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, unauthorized access details, and response actions, directly fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (November 25, 2024), which is a verifiable fact, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with operational impact (shipping, manufacturing) and response actions (investigation, file review, notifications), directly referencing a disclosed event, so it is classified as Incident Disclosure. No hard verifiable facts (e.g., dates, named firms, numbers) or specific details from the ✓ IS list are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial expenses, material impact, and risks related to an incident without describing the event itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains no verifiable specific facts like dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, fitting Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific response actions and a date, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact and financial materiality of an incident without describing the event details, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts like dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope of an actual cybersecurity incident (data stolen) and current investigation findings, which directly fits Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific quantified fact (35.5 million consumers), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope and review of exfiltrated data in a cybersecurity incident, including PII and PHI, which directly references a real event and falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, named entities, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with details on unauthorized access, wire payment misdirection, and email deletion, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a hard verifiable fact (the $250,000 wire payment), making it Firm-Specific.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes data exfiltrated in a cybersecurity incident, including the scope of affected data (IT and financial information), which fits Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (fiscal year end) unique to this company, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial costs, insurance, and notification related to a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It lacks any specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


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


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessment, risks, and ongoing remediation without describing the incident details, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It mentions 'Dropbox Sign infrastructure,' a specific product, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident, including investigation with forensic investigators and notifications to law enforcement and users, which directly relates to incident disclosure. No specific details such as dates, named firms, or frameworks are provided, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date, unauthorized access details, and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one hard verifiable fact (specific date), making it Firm-Specific after validation.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial expenses, risks, and materiality assessment of the incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impacts (expenses and lost revenue) of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains two hard verifiable facts: specific dollar amounts of $2.3 million and $15 million.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions and the scope of a specific cybersecurity incident (network interruption at Change Healthcare systems), which references a real event and fits Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (Change Healthcare systems), which is unique to this company's disclosure, but no hard verifiable facts like dates or dollar amounts, so it is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation into unauthorized access and data exfiltration, which directly references a real cybersecurity incident and response actions. No specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts are provided, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific incident with a date and response actions, such as isolating systems and engaging experts, which directly references a real event, fitting Incident Disclosure. The specific date 'December 20, 2023' is a firm-specific fact, but only one hard verifiable fact is present, so specificity is Firm-Specific rather than Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes specific dates of DOJ determinations, law enforcement involvement, and data status related to a cybersecurity incident, which constitutes an incident disclosure narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial costs and material impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident event itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains two hard verifiable facts: a specific dollar amount and a specific date, meeting the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details on what happened (unauthorized access), when (July 10, 2024), and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It is Firm-Specific due to the named date, but lacks multiple hard facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer with no substantive cybersecurity content, fitting the 'None/Other' category for disclaimers. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, directly fitting Incident Disclosure. The date is a specific fact that identifies this company's disclosure, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific details on unauthorized access and data scope, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific number of users (8.4 million), which is a verifiable fact, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, directly fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date), which qualifies it as Firm-Specific under the decision test.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a detected cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, which directly matches the Incident Disclosure category. The specific date qualifies it as Firm-Specific, but only one hard fact is present, so it is not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the potential materiality of the incident and its financial impact without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration; it contains a specific date (March 31, 2026), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses material impact and materiality conclusions without describing the incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or verifiable details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


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


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact assessment of an incident without describing the event, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific details, dates, or named entities, making it standard boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope of a real cybersecurity incident (affected data types and what was not compromised), which directly references a disclosed event and fits Incident Disclosure. It lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph directly references an incident and describes response actions (e.g., containing threats, engaging experts, notifying authorities), which aligns with Incident Disclosure; it lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident (e.g., activating the response plan, investigation with external advisors, taking systems offline), which directly fits Incident Disclosure. It lacks any specific details like dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident, including containment, investigation, and notifications, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named firms, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with a date and response actions, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (the date), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments and business/financial impact of a cyber incident without describing the event itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It contains no named entities, dates, or specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph references a specific cybersecurity incident (Change Healthcare cyberattack) and describes ongoing response actions like data assessment and service restoration, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (April 22, 2024), making it Firm-Specific, but only one hard fact, so not Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard legal disclaimer about filing status with no cybersecurity content, so it fits the 'None/Other' category, and it contains no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident, including communication with stakeholders and operational measures under a named internal program, which directly fits Incident Disclosure. It contains a firm-specific fact (the Halliburton Management System), but no hard verifiable facts like dates or dollar amounts, so it is Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation and evaluation of notifications related to a cybersecurity incident, which directly references a real event and falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific details such as dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph references a real incident and describes remediation actions, fitting Incident Disclosure; it lacks any specific details like dates, named entities, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, fitting Strategy Integration. It contains no specific dates, numbers, named entities, or other verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is part of a Form 8-K Item 1.05 filing and describes remediation actions and outcomes related to a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Incident Disclosure; however, it contains no specific details such as dates, named entities, or quantifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for integrating cybersecurity risk management into enterprise risk management, which is a core aspect of risk management processes. It contains no specific details, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subjects are the board of directors and audit committee, focusing on their oversight of cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Board Governance. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Committee (a board committee) receiving reports and reporting to the Board, making Board Governance the most applicable category. No specific facts like named roles, dates, or frameworks are present, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer and cross-reference to risk factors, with no substantive disclosure on cybersecurity governance, incidents, or processes, fitting the 'None/Other' category for non-substantive content.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the board of directors, discussing oversight and briefing cadence, which aligns with Board Governance. It contains no specific facts, named frameworks, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses centrally on evaluating third-party vendors as part of cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Third-Party Risk category. It contains no named entities, frameworks, dates, or other specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes and investments in cybersecurity, which is central to risk management. It lacks any specific details, frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality assessment of the incident's impact on financial condition and operations without describing the incident itself, aligning with Strategy Integration. It lacks specific verifiable facts like dates, numbers, or named entities beyond generic references, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity program design, which is part of internal risk management processes, and contains no specific details such as named frameworks, roles, or dates.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cyber risk management program and its integration with enterprise risk management, which is the core of Risk Management Process. It lacks any specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight duties and evaluation of a specific cybersecurity committee, which is a board governance topic. It contains the specific fact of a named committee (Cybersecurity Committee), making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses general dependency on systems and vendors, which relates to risk identification but does not describe specific internal processes, incidents, or governance. 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 program and its integration into enterprise risk management, which is a core aspect of Risk Management Process. No specific details such as named frameworks, dates, roles, or unique identifiers are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal process of integrating cybersecurity risk management into the overall enterprise risk management program, which aligns with Risk Management Process; no specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal cybersecurity training and policy requirements, which is a core aspect of risk management processes. No specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or unique details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident response and recovery frameworks and their testing, which is a core aspect of risk management processes. No specific facts such as named frameworks, dates, or unique details are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors receiving cybersecurity reports, which is board oversight, so Board Governance. It mentions specific cybersecurity roles (CISO and CIO), which are on the IS list, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on reviewing and monitoring third-party IT service providers' cybersecurity measures, with Security Scorecard named as a tool, making vendor oversight the central topic, which aligns with Third-Party Risk.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the audit committee and board of directors receiving briefings on cybersecurity, which is board oversight, fitting Board Governance. No specific facts like dates, names, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion about the absence of cybersecurity incidents, with no incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's safeguards and vulnerabilities to cybersecurity threats, which aligns with internal risk management processes, but it lacks any specific details, frameworks, or firm-specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses Mr. Tao's professional experience in business consultation and marketing with no mention of cybersecurity, board governance, or management roles in cyber, so it is non-cybersecurity content and falls under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph is an introductory statement or section header with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, such as processes, incidents, or roles, fitting the 'None/Other' category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (head of ITS Department and executive management) as the grammatical subject responsible for cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with the Management Role category. No specific facts from the ✓ IS list or hard verifiable facts are present, and no standards are named, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a specific cybersecurity management role (Group Head, Cybersecurity/Information Security Officer), making it Management Role. It contains two hard verifiable facts: specific number of years (28) and specific join date (2020), qualifying it as Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (CIO and Director of IT Security) and their qualifications, which is the main focus, aligning with Management Role category. It contains firm-specific facts like cybersecurity-specific titles and a specific number of years of experience, but no hard verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal approach to risk management with board and executive involvement, fitting Risk Management Process, but contains no specific details or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the internal cybersecurity coordinator's role and responsibilities, making Management Role the most applicable category. It contains a cybersecurity-specific title (internal cybersecurity coordinator), which is a firm-specific fact, but no other hard verifiable facts to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general incident response steps (eradication, root cause analysis, prevention) as part of internal processes, without referencing a specific incident or company details, fitting Risk Management Process; it contains no specific facts like dates, names, or standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses general IT team qualifications without referencing board oversight, management roles, processes, incidents, or strategy, making it non-substantive and fitting None/Other; no specific facts are present, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general use of third-party services with cybersecurity protections but does not focus on governance, management, processes, incidents, or strategy, making it a generic statement without substantive disclosure; no specific facts are present, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is 'The Board,' and it describes board oversight through receiving updates on cyber risk, which is core to Board Governance. No specific facts (e.g., dates, named roles, or frameworks) are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone statement about the absence of cybersecurity breaches, which aligns with Strategy Integration as a materiality conclusion; it contains two specific dates (hard verifiable facts), making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CSO and CISO) and their reporting lines to a specific committee, with board oversight mentioned briefly, aligning with Management Role per tiebreakers. It contains specific facts like the CISO title and named committee, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Invesco's internal cybersecurity activities, such as investment in threat-intelligence and use of external experts, which aligns with risk management processes. No specific facts or named standards are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CIO and VP of Information Security) having primary responsibility for cybersecurity risk management, which aligns with Management Role category. It contains specific cybersecurity-specific titles, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph is a generic statement about recognizing the importance of cybersecurity measures without mentioning any specific processes, roles, incidents, or details, making it non-substantive and applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board and Audit Committee receiving reports on cybersecurity risks and incidents, which is a board governance matter, and contains no specific details, named entities, or verifiable facts unique to Commerce.com, Inc.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity practices like phishing simulations and training, which fall under risk management processes, but contains no specific details such as dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cyber insurance coverage to mitigate financial losses, which falls under strategy integration as it addresses business impact without describing any incident. It contains no specific details such as dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which is the core of Risk Management Process. It lacks any specific details, named frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality and expenses related to cybersecurity incidents without describing any specific event, which aligns with Strategy Integration as a standalone materiality conclusion. It contains no unique facts, frameworks, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal strategies for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts such as named frameworks, roles, dates, or tools, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CFO, COO, CEO) and their cybersecurity responsibilities, making Management Role the appropriate category. It contains no specific facts like named frameworks, dates, numbers, or unique details, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily identifies the CISO management role and who holds it (CFO), which is the main focus, aligning with Management Role category. It contains a specific fact from the IS list (CISO title), making it Firm-Specific after filtering generic elements like CFO.


reasoning: The paragraph describes management's role in monitoring cybersecurity incidents, including third-party notifications, which is part of the company's internal risk management process; no specific facts such as named roles, dates, or firms are present.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is the Board of Directors providing oversight, which aligns with Board Governance. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate language typical for such disclosures.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the activities of cybersecurity professionals in analyzing threats, defining policies, and monitoring incidents, which aligns with the company's internal risk management processes rather than board oversight, management roles, or specific incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the establishment of an internal cybersecurity team for awareness and training, which aligns with the company's own risk management processes; it contains specific facts like a named program and a date, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management system, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own processes. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's internal incident response plan and testing procedures, which aligns with risk management processes, and contains no specific facts like dates, names, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for employee and contractor cybersecurity training and communication of policies, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on vendor oversight through a risk management process for third-party providers, including due diligence and monitoring, which aligns with Third-Party Risk. It contains no specific details such as named standards, dates, or firm-specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses who handles day-to-day cybersecurity management and potential role enhancements, which directly focuses on management responsibilities in cybersecurity, fitting the Management Role category. No specific facts like named roles, dates, or frameworks are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's incident response plan and continuous improvement, which is part of internal risk management processes. No specific facts from the IS list (e.g., named roles, dates, or frameworks) are present, and it does not name a recognized standard, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking goal statement about cyber incident response with no mention of board oversight, management roles, specific processes, incidents, or details, making it non-substantive and generic.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion stating no cybersecurity incidents, without describing any event, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains two specific dates (hard verifiable facts), making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity programs and processes, which aligns with Risk Management Process as it focuses on the company's own risk management activities. No specific facts are mentioned, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and processes, including incident response, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details like named frameworks, dates, or roles, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No specific facts like dates, names, or numbers are provided, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's plan to implement a cybersecurity risk management process, which aligns with Risk Management Process. It references a specific system 'BDTP TM', making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph solely states a materiality conclusion about an incident without describing the event, which fits Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts and is generic boilerplate language that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on cyber insurance reimbursement for a cyber incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers for financial aspects of incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion with no incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains a specific year reference (2024), making it Firm-Specific, but lacks a second hard verifiable fact for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the potential material impact of an incident and ongoing forensic investigation without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes incident response actions such as system restoration and engaging experts, which is part of an actual cybersecurity incident disclosure in an Item 1.05 filing. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cyber insurance coverage, which is explicitly part of business/financial impact under Strategy Integration, and it contains no specific details such as dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph's grammatical subject is 'individuals in Company management' with specific roles named (Senior Director of IT), focusing on management roles implementing cybersecurity processes, which aligns with Management Role category. It contains at least one specific fact (Senior Director of IT), a cybersecurity-specific title, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident involving data access and exfiltration, and response actions like notifications, which fits Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, names, or numbers are provided, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on potential financial risks and materiality conclusions related to an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact and financial materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph references a real incident and ongoing forensic analysis, which aligns with Incident Disclosure as it includes response actions for a disclosed event, though it lacks detailed description of the incident itself. No specific facts such as dates, named firms, or details are present, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality of the incident without describing the event, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial and insurance implications of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CTO and senior director) and their qualifications/certifications, with reporting lines to the Audit Committee, making Management Role the most applicable category per tiebreakers; it contains specific cybersecurity titles and certifications, which are firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is about contractual terms (Credit Agreement and Lease Agreement) with no cybersecurity content, falling under non-substantive legal disclaimers typical for SEC filings.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (notifying law enforcement and regulatory bodies) related to a cybersecurity incident in an Item 1.05 filing, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on the materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event, which fits Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or verifiable details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts, making it generic boilerplate that could apply to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact and financial condition related to an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No specific facts are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers. It contains no specific facts such as dates, numbers, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (notification to law enforcement and regulatory bodies) as part of an incident disclosure in a Form 8-K Item 1.05 filing, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, names, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on insurance reimbursements for incident costs without describing the event, which fits Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. It lacks any specific facts like dates, amounts, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (contained incident, restored IT environment) for a disclosed incident, making it Incident Disclosure; however, it lacks any specific facts like dates, names, or numbers, so it is Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality assessment and potential impacts of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including scope (networks and transactional services not accessible) and a specific URL for updates, which is unique to this company's disclosure and fits the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (closing access and providing notice) to a cybersecurity incident, which aligns with Incident Disclosure per the tiebreakers, but it lacks any specific details like dates, names, or quantifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses executive changes in a subsidiary and does not mention any cybersecurity incident, risk management, or related topics, so it is non-cybersecurity content; per instructions, None/Other paragraphs always get Generic Boilerplate for specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the material impact assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific details such as dates, names, or quantifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (containing the incident, restoring systems, resuming operations) for a disclosed cybersecurity incident in an 8-K Item 1.05 filing, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts like dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific dates (August 14 and October 28, 2025) and scope (customer information exposed), which directly fits the Incident Disclosure category as it references a disclosed event.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on working with a cyber insurance provider for an ongoing investigation and potential claims, which relates to business impact and insurance without describing the incident event, fitting Strategy Integration. No specific facts like dates, named firms, or frameworks are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph references a real cybersecurity incident and describes response actions (investigation, scope assessment, notifications), which aligns with Incident Disclosure. No specific facts like dates, names, or numbers are present, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality of an incident without describing the event, aligning with Strategy Integration per tiebreakers. No specific facts are present, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses assessing the financial materiality impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts such as dates, amounts, or named entities, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on the materiality conclusion of an incident without describing the event, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts and uses generic language, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing investigation and response actions related to a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Incident Disclosure; it contains no specific verifiable facts, dates, names, or standards, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the incident's scope (access to systems, data exfiltration, encryption) and investigation status, which directly references a real event and fits Incident Disclosure. It lacks any specific dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes operational disruptions from a cybersecurity incident (implied by Item 1.05 filing), including scope of online ordering issues, fitting Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts like dates, names, or numbers, making it generic boilerplate after filtering.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on monitoring the materiality of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration's inclusion of materiality assessments. It contains no specific details such as dates, names, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a response action (mailing notification letters) based on investigation findings, which is part of incident disclosure in an Item 1.05 filing for a material cybersecurity incident.


reasoning: The paragraph references a disclosed cybersecurity incident in an 8-K Item 1.05 filing and describes response actions (investigation, engaging experts, notifying law enforcement) and a materiality assessment, which aligns with Incident Disclosure as it includes incident response actions for a real event.


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


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational impact and restoration efforts of a disclosed cybersecurity incident, which aligns with Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific details like dates, named entities, or verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph references a real cyber incident and describes response actions (restoration of systems, operational impacts, investigation closure), fitting Incident Disclosure. No specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts are provided, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific incident with a date and unauthorized access, fitting Incident Disclosure; it contains one specific date, making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable due to only one hard fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving threat actor access to IT systems and sensitive personal information, along with notification plans, which directly fits Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific details such as dates, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial impacts and costs associated with a past cyber incident without describing the incident narrative, which aligns with Strategy Integration per the tiebreakers. It contains no specific dates, numbers, named entities, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the activation of response process and determination of a fourth-party vendor compromise causing the incident, which fits Incident Disclosure as it references a real event. No specific facts like dates, named entities, or numbers are present, making it generic boilerplate.