content_category: Risk Management Process

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general approach to identifying and managing cybersecurity risks and integrating them into enterprise risk management. It lacks specific frameworks, named roles, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.

provider: google


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph explicitly details the Audit Committee's oversight role and specific reporting lines from the ERM Committee, CIO, and VP Infrastructure, which are unique to this company's governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general cybersecurity risks and potential impacts using hypothetical language ('could lead to', 'we may not be'), which is characteristic of boilerplate risk disclosures rather than specific processes or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's specific Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework, including verifiable facts such as the existence of 12 risk categories and a quarterly review cadence.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving Dropbox Sign, providing verifiable facts such as the date of discovery (April 24, 2024), the specific product affected, and the types of data accessed.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident that occurred on a specific date (May 6, 2024) and details the company's response, meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure. It qualifies as level 4 because it contains multiple verifiable facts, including the specific date of the incident and the specific operational impacts (disruptions to financial and operating reporting systems).


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph describes the specific internal organizational structure (Legal, Compliance, and Finance departments) and operational methods (automated monitoring, scans, third-party assessments) used to manage cybersecurity risks, which is firm-specific information.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discloses a specific cybersecurity incident, providing the exact date of determination (March 10, 2024) and details regarding the company's response and operational impact, meeting the criteria for quantified-verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific, ongoing cybersecurity incident involving a nation-state actor, including the timeline (late November 2023) and the specific impact (access to source code repositories and internal systems), meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure and high specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's risk management process, specifically mentioning the biannual review cadence and the involvement of specific roles like the CISO and CIO, which makes it firm-specific.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph explicitly identifies the Chief Technology Officer's role, qualifications (15+ years experience), and specific reporting lines to the General Counsel, which makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on March 10, 2024, and provides verifiable details regarding the nature of the event, the response, and the remediation status, meeting the criteria for level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes the delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the 'audit committee' and the reporting structure between the committee and the board, which constitutes firm-specific governance details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on a verifiable date (November 25, 2024) and details the nature of the event (unauthorized access and encryption), meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure and level 4 specificity.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: This paragraph is a standard disclaimer stating that no material incidents have occurred and providing a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, which falls under the 'None/Other' category as it does not describe specific processes or governance.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discusses an ongoing cybersecurity incident and its material impact on the company's business operations, which is the core purpose of an 8-K Item 1.05 disclosure. It is classified as specificity level 3 because it refers to a specific, unique event ('the incident') affecting the company's operations, though it lacks the multiple verifiable facts (like dates or specific dollar amounts) required for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (CIO, Information Security Director) and provides their specific years of experience (35 and 25 years), which qualifies as firm-specific and quantified information.


reasoning: The paragraph directly addresses an ongoing cybersecurity incident, discussing law enforcement cooperation and the assessment of material impact, which is the core purpose of Item 1.05. It is classified as specificity level 3 because it refers to a specific, named company's ongoing incident response actions, though it lacks the two distinct verifiable facts (like specific dates or dollar amounts) required for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized activity and provides a verifiable date (December 20, 2023) for the company's response action of isolating systems, meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure and high specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the integration of cybersecurity into enterprise risk management, which is a core component of risk management processes. It is classified as level 1 because it uses generic, boilerplate language without naming specific frameworks, unique programs, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes the board's oversight role and the specific cadence of reporting ('at least an annual basis') involving the audit committee and executive leadership, which constitutes firm-specific governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 1, 2024, and details the company's specific response actions, such as activating its incident response plan and engaging external experts.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the evaluation of third-party vendors, which is the core definition of Third-Party Risk. It is classified as specificity level 1 because it uses generic language ('risk-based approach', 'as appropriate') without naming specific frameworks, unique company programs, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the oversight relationship between the Board committee and management regarding cybersecurity risks and incidents. It is classified as specificity level 1 because it uses generic language ('The Committee', 'periodic reports') without naming specific committees, board members, or unique reporting structures.


reasoning: The paragraph consists of a standard forward-looking disclaimer regarding potential future incidents and a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, which falls under the None/Other category.


reasoning: The paragraph directly addresses the materiality of a specific, ongoing cybersecurity incident, which is the core purpose of an 8-K Item 1.05 disclosure. It is firm-specific because it refers to the company's specific assessment of a concrete event affecting their financial condition.


reasoning: The paragraph directly addresses the financial impact and remediation steps related to a specific, previously disclosed cyber incident. It is classified as firm-specific (level 3) because it references the company's specific insurance strategy regarding a concrete event.


reasoning: The paragraph directly addresses the materiality of a specific cybersecurity incident, which is the core purpose of an 8-K Item 1.05 disclosure. It is classified as specificity level 1 because it uses standard legal boilerplate language regarding materiality without providing specific, verifiable details about the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's cybersecurity risk management strategy, including the adoption of the CIS Controls framework and specific internal processes like ERM integration and internal audit reviews. It is classified as level 3 because it references company-specific entities like the 'Technology Committee of our Board of Directors' and specific internal initiatives like 'technology insourcing'.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response to an active cybersecurity incident, including actions like retaining experts and notifying authorities. It is classified as level 3 because it describes specific, firm-specific actions taken in response to a concrete event, though it lacks the multiple quantitative metrics required for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discusses an ongoing investigation into a specific cybersecurity incident, which is the core purpose of an 8-K Item 1.05 disclosure. It is classified as level 2 because it uses industry-standard terminology like 'forensic analysis' and 'nature, scope and impact' without providing company-specific details or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general cybersecurity risks and the company's ongoing monitoring efforts, but lacks any specific frameworks, named roles, or unique company facts, making it boilerplate risk disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details the company's internal incident response and business continuity processes, including specific roles like the 'Chief Security Officer' and named programs like the 'Incident Response Program'. It describes the operational workflow for managing incidents rather than just board oversight or third-party management.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly identifies specific internal roles (CFO, CLO, VP, Corporate Controller, Sr. Director of IT) and defines a specific 'Risk Management Team' structure, which qualifies as firm-specific information.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard legal disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements and safe harbor provisions, which is boilerplate language and does not provide substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details specific risk management processes like quarterly phishing tests and annual penetration testing, which are firm-specific activities. It also references industry frameworks (NIST, ISO) and specific third-party assessment requirements, moving it beyond generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, providing verifiable facts such as the number of accounts accessed (33 million), the number of accounts with data saved (3,000), and the specific dollar amount of the compensation program (1.685 trillion won / $1.2 billion).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (website defacement) and includes multiple verifiable facts, such as the date of the incident (August 25, 2025), the specific impact (cancellation of a seminar on September 2, 2025), and the involvement of external entities (FBI).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific, actual cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access and data exfiltration, which is the definition of Incident Disclosure. It is classified as specificity level 3 because it provides firm-specific details about the incident date (July 25, 2024) and the specific operational impacts (shutting down systems, disruption to financial and operating reporting systems).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific, actual cybersecurity incident involving a threat actor, data exfiltration, and the company's response. It meets the criteria for level 4 specificity by providing multiple verifiable facts, including the date of the communication (May 11, 2025), the specific nature of the threat, and the company's concrete actions taken in response.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Audit Committee's oversight of cybersecurity risk and its reporting cadence, which is the primary board governance function; it mentions company‑specific bodies (Audit Committee, ERM Committee, CIO/VP Infrastructure) indicating firm‑specific detail.

provider: openai


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident that occurred on March 10, 2024, with specific actions taken (containment, investigation, engagement of experts, law enforcement notification) and mentions disruption to business, providing multiple verifiable facts.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses potential cyber threats, lack of investment and resources, and possible impact, which aligns with risk management discussion. It contains no named frameworks, company‑specific facts, or quantifiable data, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the cybersecurity program is integrated into the company's ERM, mentions an annual Enterprise Risk Assessment and quarterly monitoring/reporting, which are firm‑specific details about the risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cyber event that occurred on May 6, 202Key...


reasoning: Paragraph describes a real cybersecurity breach that occurred in late November 2023, naming affected employee groups (senior leadership, cybersecurity, legal) and stating the threat actor’s use of exfiltrated data to target source code repositories; includes multiple verifiable details (date, specific roles, target systems).


reasoning: The paragraph emphasizes the involvement of third‑party IT administrators and service providers in identifying and assessing cyber risks, highlighting external parties' role in risk management.


reasoning: Paragraph identifies the Chief Technology Officer, his experience, and reporting line to General Counsel, indicating a firm-specific description of management responsibility for cybersecurity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event that occurred on April 24, 2024, detailing what was accessed, the response, and current knowledge, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes a specific cybersecurity event that occurred on March  10, 2024, detailing the unauthorized access, response actions, and impact on operations.


reasoning: Paragraph identifies the company's CIO and Information Security Director, their roles and experience, which is a firm‑specific description of management responsibility; it includes verifiable facts such as 35 and 25 years of experience, meeting level 4 criteria.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph explains how cybersecurity risk is integrated into the overall risk management framework, mentions review frequency and participants, which is the core of risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board’s overall oversight and the audit committee’s delegated responsibility for reviewing cybersecurity risk, which is the primary focus of board governance.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses potential cybersecurity risks that could materially affect operations, strategy, and financial condition, which aligns with risk identification and assessment rather than board or management specifics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event that actually occurred, giving the date (Nov 25 2024) and details of unauthorized access and encryption of data.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity event (unauthorized activity), provides a specific date (December 20, 2023) and concrete actions (isolating systems, retaining experts, involving law enforcement), which are verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, noting cooperation with law enforcement, regulatory notification assessment, and the lack of material impact, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity event that occurred on May 1, 2024, detailing detection, response steps, external expert involvement, system shutdown, and law enforcement notification, providing multiple verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the board’s oversight role and reporting cadence, which is the primary purpose of Board Governance disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's risk-based approach to evaluating third‑party vendors as part of its cybersecurity risk management process, without naming frameworks or company‑specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing cybersecurity incident, its unknown scope, and material impact, which matches the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how cybersecurity risk management is integrated into enterprise risk management, focusing on methodology and governance, without naming any frameworks or company‑specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward‑looking disclaimer referencing risk factors and contains no specific board, management, risk process, third‑party, incident, or strategy details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing forensic analysis of a cybersecurity incident, indicating an actual event, which matches the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph is part of Item 1.05 and addresses the company's determination about a cybersecurity incident's material impact, fitting the Incident Disclosure category. It contains only generic language with no named frameworks, unique company details, or quantifiable facts, thus classified as generic boilerplate (level 1).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the actual cyber incident response (restoring systems, working with law enforcement, notifying regulators), which is the primary purpose, and it mentions a company‑specific action—retaining experts and contacting authorities—making it firm‑specific but without multiple quantifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Committee’s receipt of reports and its reporting to the board, focusing on board oversight of cyber risk.


reasoning: The paragraph evaluates the material impact of a specific cybersecurity incident, which is the hallmark of an Incident Disclosure. It contains only generic language without any concrete facts, dates, or amounts, making it a generic boilerplate.


reasoning: Paragraph outlines Wendy's risk management process: uses CIS Controls framework, annual assessments, board Technology Committee review, dedicated teams, training program – all describing how the company manages cyber risk.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines S&T's incident response and business continuity processes, evaluation criteria, and escalation procedures, which is characteristic of risk management. It mentions the Chief Security Officer by title and specific internal programs, making it firm‑specific rather than generic.


reasoning: Paragraph describes general cyber risk, monitoring, potential impacts without naming frameworks, committees, or specific company facts; thus generic boilerplate risk management description.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's processes for assessing and managing cyber risks (threat assessment, layered security, training, standards), which is the primary focus of Risk Management Process. It references industry frameworks (NIST, ISO) but no company‑specific facts, placing it at sector‑adapted specificity level 2.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses seeking reimbursement from cyber insurance, which relates to how cyber risk impacts financial strategy and resource allocation.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident (defaced website), provides dates (August 25, 2025, September 2, 2025), actions taken, and mentions forensic specialists and FBI reporting, making it an incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph details the internal management team, its members, reporting lines to the Audit Committee, and the role of the Sr. Director of IT, which aligns with the definition of Management Role.


reasoning: Paragraph details a real cybersecurity incident with dates, number of accounts accessed (33 million), data saved (≈3,000), and a compensation program of 1.685 trillion won ($1.2 B).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event that occurred (email threat, data access, termination, date May 11, 2025) and details actions taken, fitting the definition of Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward‑looking safe‑harbor disclaimer and does not describe an actual incident or any governance, risk, or management details. It is a standard boilerplate section header.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on July 5 2022 — it details the unauthorized access, exfiltration, investigation, and remediation steps, indicating an actual event rather than a hypothetical scenario.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on Audit Committee oversight of cyber risks, quarterly reports from ERM Committee and CIO/VP Infrastructure, matching Board Governance (Item 106(c)(1)). Names specific committees (Audit, ERM), roles (CIO, VP Infrastructure), cadences (quarterly, periodic, annual), providing 4+ verifiable firm-specific facts.

provider: x-ai


reasoning: Paragraph describes integration of cybersecurity into ERM with specifics like annual ERA, 12 risk categories (one Cybersecurity), quarterly monitoring, and reporting to leadership/Board, aligning with risk assessment, monitoring, and ERM integration. Multiple verifiable facts (ERM/ERA names, 12 categories, annual/quarterly cadences) exceed firm-specific threshold for level 4.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's risk identification, assessment, and management processes, including a multi-stakeholder team from specific departments (Legal and Compliance, Finance, third-party IT administrator) and methods like automated monitoring, scans, and third-party assessments, fitting Risk Management Process (Item 106(b)). It includes firm-specific details like named departments and team composition but lacks quantified facts (e.g., no dollar amounts, dates, or headcounts), confirming specificity level 3.


reasoning: Paragraph describes generic processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, including asset identification, threat assessment by likelihood/impact, controls, ERM integration, and third-party threats, fitting Risk Management Process dominantly (SEC Item 106(b)); no named frameworks, roles, or company-unique facts, making it boilerplate level 1.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual incident with timing ('On April 24, 2024'), nature ('unauthorized access to the Dropbox Sign production environment'), scope ('accessed data related to all users... emails and usernames... phone numbers, hashed passwords'), impact ('no evidence that the threat actor accessed the contents of users’ accounts'), and remediation ('activated our cybersecurity incident response process'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple verifiable facts including exact date, product name 'Dropbox Sign (formerly HelloSign)', and detailed lists of accessed/non-accessed data qualify as level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual incident with specifics like 'determined on March 10, 2024,' 'third party gained unauthorized access,' disruption to business operations but 'continued...in all material respects,' and actions including 'initiated...incident response,' 'engaged cybersecurity expertise,' and 'notified law enforcement,' matching Incident Disclosure; multiple verifiable facts (date, access details, response actions) justify level 4.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specifics like date ('On May 6, 2024'), company ('Key Tronic Corporation'), nature ('unauthorized third party access to portions of its IT systems'), impacts ('disruptions... including financial and operating reporting systems'), and remediation ('activated its cyber incident procedure... external cybersecurity experts... notified law enforcement'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple verifiable facts (date, specific systems affected, external experts, law enforcement notification) justify level 4 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident with specifics like 'late November 2023' start date, 'very small percentage of employee email accounts' including 'senior leadership team' and 'cybersecurity, legal' functions, and subsequent access to 'source code repositories and internal systems' by a 'nation-state threat actor', matching Incident Disclosure. Multiple verifiable facts (dates, affected groups, systems) justify level 4 specificity.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual past incident with specifics: date 'March 10, 2024', nature ('third party gained unauthorized access to portions of our information environment'), impact ('disruption to a portion of the Company’s business' but 'operations have continued...in all material respects'), and remediation ('affected information environment is remediated'). Multiple verifiable facts (date, scope, status) confirm level 4; primary purpose is incident disclosure per 8-K Item 1.05.


reasoning: Paragraph describes integration of cybersecurity into enterprise risk management with biannual reviews involving named roles (CISO, CIO), business segments, executive management, mitigation plans, and annual Board review, fitting Risk Management Process (Item 106(b)). Specificity level 4 due to multiple verifiable facts: named CISO/CIO, biannual review cadence, annual Board review.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines how the company assesses, identifies, and manages material cybersecurity risks and integrates them into enterprise risk management, which is the core of the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: Paragraph discusses potential material impacts on business strategy, operations, and financial condition due to insufficient cybersecurity investments and resources, noting no material effects to date, aligning with Strategy Integration; firm-specific via admission of 'without significant investments in data security protection' unique to this small company, but no frameworks or quantified facts for higher levels.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) by role, provides specific qualifications ('over 15 years of experience in software development and security architecture'), outlines responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management, and details reporting lines ('provides reports to and meets periodically with our General Counsel'), directly matching 'Management Role'. Specificity level 4 as it includes two or more verifiable facts: quantified experience (15+ years) and concrete reporting structure to the General Counsel.


reasoning: Paragraph identifies specific roles (CIO, Information Security Director, 'Cybersecurity Team'), their responsibilities in leading the cybersecurity program, and qualifications (over 35 and 25 years of experience), fitting Management Role dominantly. Specificity level 4 due to multiple verifiable facts: named roles/team, two quantified experience years (>35, >25).


reasoning: The paragraph describes board-level oversight of cybersecurity risks, delegation to the audit committee for review and discussion, and regular reporting, directly matching 'Board Governance' (Item 106(c)(1)). It is generic boilerplate (level 1) with no named frameworks, unique company facts, or quantifiable details; standard language like 'audit committee' and 'regularly reports' applies to any company.


reasoning: Paragraph states no material past cybersecurity incidents ('We have not identified risks from known cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any prior cybersecurity incidents, that have materially affected us') and cross-references Risk Factors, fitting 'forward-looking disclaimers, section headers, cross-references'; hypothetical future risks do not qualify as Incident Disclosure per special rules.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual past incident with specifics: date 'November 25, 2024', nature ('threat actor illegally accessed... encrypted some of its data files'), and remediation ('internal investigation, engaging external cybersecurity specialists, restricting access'), fitting Incident Disclosure per 8-K Item 1.05. Multiple verifiable facts (date, access method, encryption, named remediation steps) qualify as level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual ongoing cybersecurity incident, including its nature (investigation ongoing), scope/impact (not fully known, material on business operations, uncertain on financials), and remediation (recovery efforts), directly matching Incident Disclosure for 8-K Item 1.05. Firm-specific due to references to 'the Company’s business operations' and 'financial condition or results of operations' unique to V F CORP, but lacks two+ quantified verifiable facts like amounts or dates beyond filing context for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual incident with nature ('unauthorized activity on certain...systems'), timing ('recently', 'December 20, 2023'), and remediation ('isolate systems from the Internet', 'retained leading experts, worked with law enforcement'), fitting Incident Disclosure per 8-K Item 1.05. Multiple verifiable facts (specific date, isolation action, expert/law enforcement involvement) justify level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific timing ('May 1, 2024'), nature ('unauthorized occurrences by a third party on portions of the Company’s IT systems'), and remediation actions ('investigation with leading external cybersecurity experts, activating its incident response plan, shutting down portions of the IT systems, notifying law enforcement'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Specificity level 4 due to two+ verifiable facts: exact date and detailed sequence of firm-specific response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses incorporating cybersecurity risk management into overall enterprise risk management programs with shared methodologies, reporting channels, and governance processes, directly matching 'ERM integration' under Risk Management Process. It is generic boilerplate with no named frameworks, company-specific facts, or quantifiable details, warranting specificity level 1.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a 'risk-based approach to the evaluation of third-party vendors based on the criticality and size of the vendor' and 'review by our external partners,' which directly matches Third-Party Risk oversight. It is generic boilerplate with no named frameworks, unique company facts, or quantifiable details, fitting level 1.


reasoning: Paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer using hypothetical language ('may not be successful... could have') and cross-references Item 1A Risk Factors, matching 'None/Other' criteria exactly; per rules, None/Other gets specificity_level=1.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Committee's receipt of periodic reports on cybersecurity risks from management, updates on incidents, and reporting to the full Board, which directly matches Board Governance oversight and briefing cadence (Item 106(c)(1)). It uses generic terms like 'periodic reports,' 'as necessary,' and unnamed 'Committee' with no frameworks, unique company facts, or quantifiable details, fitting level 1 boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and annual updates from the audit committee and executive leadership team, directly matching 'Board Governance'. It is firm-specific (level 3) due to details on the audit committee's involvement and 'at least an annual basis' briefing cadence unique to this company's structure.


reasoning: This paragraph describes post-incident actions (notified law enforcement, cooperating, assessing notifications) and current impact (no material effect on operations or financials as of filing date), fitting Incident Disclosure for an actual event in 8-K Item 1.05. Firm-specific due to references to 'the Company’s' incident and verifiable statements on impacts, but lacks quantified metrics like dollars/dates/headcounts for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes an actual ongoing cybersecurity incident, referencing 'the incident' and current 'forensic analysis' to assess 'nature, scope and impact,' with 'no conclusive evidence' found yet, matching Item 1.05 disclosure criteria. It is firm-specific due to reference to this company's unique event and investigation status, but lacks two+ verifiable facts like dates or amounts for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes ongoing remediation of an actual incident ('restore those systems', 'disruption', 'retained leading experts', 'working with law enforcement', 'notified certain regulatory authorities'), fitting Incident Disclosure for 8-K Item 1.05; firm-specific actions unique to this company but lacks two+ quantifiable facts (e.g., no names, amounts, dates) for level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph describes financial remediation (insurance claims for costs from 'the cyber incident') in an 8-K Item 1.05 filing, directly tying to actual incident impact; firm-specific as it references VF's specific actions and insurers unique to this event.


reasoning: Paragraph focuses on the lack of material financial impact from 'the incident,' aligning with Strategy Integration's emphasis on material effects on financial condition/results rather than describing the incident's nature/scope (Incident Disclosure). Language is generic boilerplate with conditional phrasing ('has not determined... reasonably likely') and no company-unique facts, frameworks, or quantifiable details.


reasoning: Paragraph assesses the materiality of 'the Incident' in an 8-K Item 1.05 filing, directly describing its (lack of) impact on the company's financial condition and operations, fitting Incident Disclosure. References to 'the Company' and 'the Incident' are unique to this firm, qualifying as firm-specific (level 3) without quantified verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Wendy's cybersecurity risk management strategy, including adoption of CIS Controls framework, annual assessments reviewed by Internal Audit and Board Technology Committee, regular risk assessments integrated with ERM, infrastructure details, dedicated teams with insourcing, and training programs—aligning with Risk Management Process (Item 106(b)). Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific elements like 'Technology Committee of our Board of Directors,' 'Internal Audit team,' and 'significant investments in technology insourcing and reassumed direct ownership,' without quantified facts like amounts or dates.


reasoning: Paragraph describes continuous monitoring and development of IT networks to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber risks, fitting Risk Management Process (Item 106(b)); hypothetical vulnerabilities ('may be vulnerable', 'could compromise') with no actual incidents. Generic boilerplate with conditional language ('may', 'could'), no named frameworks, standards, or firm-specific facts like roles or programs.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard forward-looking statement disclaimer referencing 'the Incident' but its primary purpose is legal boilerplate under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act safe harbor, fitting 'None/Other' explicitly; per rules, None/Other gets specificity_level=1.


reasoning: The paragraph details specific processes like ongoing threat assessment, layered security, quarterly phishing tests, annual third-party penetration testing, NIST/ISO standards, and SOC-1/2 compliance for banking/payroll/stock-plan providers, aligning dominantly with Risk Management Process (Item 106(b)). It includes multiple verifiable facts such as 'at least annually' penetration testing, 'at least quarterly' phishing tests, annual auditor reviews, and specific third-party compliance requirements, justifying level 4.


reasoning: Paragraph details incident evaluation by the CSO, escalation procedures, Incident Response Program (including identification, assessment, containment, investigation, training, updates, testing), and Business Continuity Plans (including for third-party vendors), aligning dominantly with risk management processes like incident response planning. Specificity level 3 due to firm-specific elements like named CSO role, S&T's named programs, and concrete procedures unique to the company, without quantified metrics like dollars, dates, or headcounts for level 4.


reasoning: This paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident including date (July 25, 2024), nature (third-party unauthorized access and exfiltration of files with sensitive personal information), scope (internal systems, potential customer data), impact (material disruption to business operations and specific systems like financial reporting), and remediation (system shutdowns, restoration, ongoing assessments), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple verifiable facts such as the exact date, specific actions (shutting down systems, isolating from Internet), and impacted areas (financial and operating reporting systems) justify level 4 specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the composition and activities of the firm-specific 'Risk Management Team' (naming CFO, CLO, VP Corporate Controller, Sr. Director SEC Reporting, Sr. Director of IT), their quarterly meetings, risk monitoring, and reporting to the Audit Committee, aligning with Management Role under Item 106(c)(2); Board Governance elements exist but are secondary to management's identification and role. Specificity level 4 due to multiple verifiable facts: specific named roles (5+), quarterly meetings, minimum annual briefings to Audit Committee.


reasoning: Paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident with specific dates (Dec 24/28, 2025), scope (33 million accounts accessed, data from 3,000 saved then deleted), perpetrator actions (identified, cooperating, devices turned over), and remediation (1.685 trillion won/$1.2B vouchers starting Jan 15, 2026), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. Multiple quantifiable facts (dates, account numbers, monetary amounts) exceed level 4 threshold.


reasoning: This paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident including specific timing ('August 25, 2025'), nature ('bad actor published a defaced website at wytecintl.com'), scope (repeated defacement, site taken down), impact (canceled seminar on 'September 2, 2025', significant financial losses), and remediation (backups, forensic specialists, FBI report), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. It includes multiple verifiable facts like two dates, website URL, seminar date, and FBI involvement, warranting level 4 specificity.


reasoning: This paragraph details an actual cybersecurity incident including specific timing ('May 11, 2025'), nature ('email from unknown threat actor claiming customer accounts and internal documentation'), scope ('multiple contractors or employees outside the US'), detection ('security monitoring in previous months'), and remediation ('terminated personnel, heightened fraud-monitoring, warned customers'), fitting Incident Disclosure perfectly. It contains multiple verifiable facts like dates, subsidiary name ('Coinbase, Inc.'), data types, and actions, exceeding level 4 criteria.