reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal vendor management program and risk assessment processes. While it mentions third-party providers, it focuses on the company's internal oversight process rather than specific vendor security standards or requirements imposed on them, making 'Risk Management Process' the most appropriate category.


content_category: Risk Management Process

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for incident response and risk management, specifically mentioning the Disaster Recovery Plan and the Crisis Management Team (CMT). It is classified as Firm-Specific because it identifies the CIO and the CMT, which are specific organizational roles and teams.

provider: google


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes and measures. It contains no specific dates, named tools, named third-party firms, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the materiality of cybersecurity risks and incidents, explicitly stating that no material incidents occurred in 2023 and discussing the potential financial impact and insurance coverage, which aligns with Strategy Integration.


content_category: None/Other

reasoning: The paragraph consists entirely of standard legal disclaimers regarding forward-looking statements and safe harbor provisions, which is classified as None/Other.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph primarily focuses on the responsibilities and qualifications of the CIO, which places it in the Management Role category. While it discusses risk management and third-party vendors, these are secondary to the description of the management role and the specific qualifications of the CIO.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes the details of a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination, the nature of the unauthorized access, and the operational impact, which fits the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of occurrence, the nature of the event, response actions taken, and the operational impact, which fits the Incident Disclosure category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the details of a specific cybersecurity incident, including the timeline of updates, the scope of affected accounts, and the financial impact of the compensation program.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of detection, the nature of the unauthorized access, and the operational impact, which falls squarely under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident, including the date of the threat actor's communication, the nature of the breach, and the company's response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's current state regarding cybersecurity risk management processes (or lack thereof), which falls under the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific facts, roles, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal audit and risk assessment processes, including who reviews the results and how remediation is handled. While it mentions the Audit Committee, the focus is on the internal management process for handling audit findings and risk assessments.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding cybersecurity incidents without describing any specific event, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique identifiers, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses primarily on the reporting lines and responsibilities of the CISO, CIO, and CTO, which places it squarely in the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph is a general introductory statement about cybersecurity risks and does not describe specific internal processes, governance, or incidents. It serves as a preamble to the section.


content_category: Board Governance

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's delegation of cybersecurity oversight to the Audit Committee, which is the primary subject. It is classified as Firm-Specific because it explicitly names the CTO as a participant in the oversight process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal security safeguards, vulnerability assessments, and incident response planning, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named tools, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a standard internal security practice (security awareness training) which falls under the company's risk management processes. It contains no specific facts, named frameworks, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, risk assessment activities, and general security measures, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named frameworks, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the qualifications and experience of specific cybersecurity management roles (CISO and VP of Information Security).


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the operational responsibilities of management and specifically identifies the 'Software Engineer' as a key role involved in cybersecurity, which qualifies as a cybersecurity-specific role under the provided guidelines.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal procedures for investigating and responding to cybersecurity threats, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is classified as Firm-Specific because it references a named internal committee (ISC).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general approach to using third-party service providers as part of its risk management process. It does not name specific vendors or unique programs, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly describes the responsibilities of senior management regarding cybersecurity risk appetite, fitting the Management Role category. It contains no specific facts, named roles, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph focuses exclusively on the company's oversight of third-party service providers, including assessment processes and contractual obligations, which aligns with the Third-Party Risk category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal procedures for risk management and cybersecurity, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific dates, named third-party firms, or unique program identifiers that would elevate it beyond generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the oversight responsibilities of the board-level Risk Committee, making 'Board Governance' the primary category. It is classified as 'Firm-Specific' because it names specific internal roles (Chief Risk Officer) and internal programs (Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan).


reasoning: The paragraph contains only high-level, aspirational statements about the company's commitment to safety and cybersecurity without describing specific governance, management, processes, or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph explains that the company has no operations and therefore no cybersecurity risk, which constitutes a disclaimer rather than a substantive disclosure of governance, management, or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response plan and general mitigation procedures, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts (CEO is on the ✗ NOT list) and uses generic language applicable to any company.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discusses the company's internal approach (or lack thereof) to risk assessment and management processes, which falls under Risk Management Process.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities regarding cybersecurity risks and incident communication. It contains no specific facts (Audit Committee, management, and regular updates are all on the ✗ NOT list).


reasoning: The paragraph describes standard internal security training and awareness practices, which falls under Risk Management Process. The mention of insurance is a generic statement without specific details, and the training activities described are common practices that do not qualify as firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the board of directors' oversight of cybersecurity risks and their interaction with management regarding risk profiles. It contains no specific facts (roles, dates, named committees, or tools) that would elevate it beyond generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on the Board of Directors' oversight responsibilities regarding cybersecurity and data privacy. It contains no specific facts, named committees, or unique identifiers, relying entirely on generic governance language.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, governance structure, and risk management framework, making 'Risk Management Process' the most appropriate category. It is classified as 'Firm-Specific' because it names unique internal committees (TRCC, ERC) and specific cybersecurity-related roles (CISO, CRO).


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal operational processes for risk management and vendor onboarding, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named tools, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding the absence of material cybersecurity incidents and discusses potential future financial/business impacts, which falls under Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding cybersecurity threats without describing any specific incident or internal process, which falls under Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal approach to risk management and the inherent limitations of its security controls, which is a standard discussion of risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment, monitoring, and policy frameworks, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is classified as Sector-Adapted because it references specific regulatory and security frameworks (CIS and FERPA) without providing firm-specific details like named tools, specific dates, or unique internal programs.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (Chief Information Officer, Director of IT) responsible for cybersecurity, which places it primarily in the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the composition and responsibilities of specific management-level committees (Cybersecurity Executive Council and Cybersecurity Compliance Committee) and the role of the CISO, which aligns with the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the specific management roles responsible for cybersecurity oversight, including the CISO and other specialized titles, which aligns with the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's general approach to security controls and risk mitigation, which falls under internal risk management processes. It contains no specific facts, named roles, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes standard internal security practices such as vulnerability management and incident response planning without referencing any specific tools, frameworks, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response and vulnerability management processes, which is the core definition of Risk Management Process. It is classified as Firm-Specific because it names a specific, non-generic role (Vice President of Operational Engineering) involved in the escalation process.


reasoning: The paragraph outlines the company's internal cybersecurity risk management objectives and the specific internal entities responsible for reviewing these processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's due diligence and contractual requirements for vendors, which falls under Third-Party Risk. It is Firm-Specific because it names 'PSCM' (Pershing Square Capital Management), which is a specific entity involved in the company's operations.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard forward-looking disclaimer regarding potential future cybersecurity risks and contains a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, which does not constitute substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the responsibilities and reporting lines of the Head of Cybersecurity, which is a cybersecurity-specific role, making 'Management Role' the primary category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal security practices like penetration testing and vendor review processes, which are standard components of a risk management program. It contains no specific names, dates, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for using third-party providers to evaluate their cybersecurity program, which is a component of their overall risk management strategy. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight responsibilities regarding cybersecurity risks, making 'Board Governance' the primary category. It is classified as 'Firm-Specific' because it explicitly names the CISO and the company's 'Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan', which are specific identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal monitoring and vulnerability management processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is Firm-Specific because it references 'OCC regulatory exams', which is a specific regulatory body relevant to the company's operations, rather than just generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, including risk assessment, network segmentation, access controls, and monitoring, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific names, dates, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management and security processes. While it mentions a third-party security program, this is presented as a component of the company's broader internal risk management framework rather than the central topic of vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general risk management activities like penetration testing, incident response planning, and information sharing, without naming specific frameworks, tools, or firms.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal enterprise risk management (ERM) process and how it identifies cybersecurity as a key risk, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named roles, or unique identifiers, relying entirely on generic corporate governance and risk management language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on identifying specific management roles (SVP/IT Manager and ISO) and their qualifications, making it a Management Role disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal security measures (firewalls, anti-malware) which are standard components of a company's risk management process. It contains no specific tools, dates, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly identifies the specific management roles (CIO, CTO, Information Security Officer) responsible for the company's information security program, which aligns with the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response processes, including specific roles like the Cybersecurity Incident Manager and VP Security, which places it in the Risk Management Process category.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a standalone materiality conclusion regarding cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident or internal process, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the qualifications, responsibilities, and reporting lines of the CISO, making 'Management Role' the most appropriate category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's oversight of third-party vendors during procurement and contracting, which falls under Third-Party Risk. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the leadership of the Information Security Department, specifically identifying the CIO's role, reporting lines, and responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the oversight responsibility for cybersecurity strategy, which falls under governance. It uses only generic terms like 'executive management' and 'risk oversight,' containing no specific facts or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the reporting lines and responsibilities of a specific management role (Senior Director of Information Technology) regarding cybersecurity oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident assessment and escalation process, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is classified as Firm-Specific because it names a unique internal committee and a cybersecurity-specific role, which are not generic.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses exclusively on the risks posed by third-party service providers and the company's reliance on them, which is the definition of Third-Party Risk.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program, including assessment cadences and specific program components, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It is classified as Sector-Adapted because it explicitly references the NIST framework but lacks unique, firm-specific facts like named internal programs, specific roles, or verifiable metrics.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the composition and function of the Cybersecurity Council, which is a management-led body, and identifies specific roles and internal programs.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the oversight responsibilities of a specific board-level committee (the Technology Committee) regarding cybersecurity and technology risk.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program, framework adoption, and specific certifications held, which falls under risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal approach (or lack thereof) to risk assessment processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, roles, or frameworks, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity policies, programs, and risk mitigation strategies, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details, named frameworks, or verifiable facts, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies a specific management role (VP of IT and Facilities) responsible for cybersecurity oversight, which falls squarely under Management Role.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for security awareness training, policy updates, and control testing, which falls squarely under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named roles, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors and Audit Committee's oversight role regarding cybersecurity. It is classified as Generic Boilerplate because it relies entirely on generic governance terms (Audit Committee, Board of Directors, management) without naming specific cybersecurity-focused committees or roles.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard forward-looking risk disclaimer stating that the company has not experienced an incident and describing potential hypothetical consequences, which constitutes boilerplate language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the roles and qualifications of the CCO and CISO, identifying them as the primary subjects responsible for cybersecurity oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO's reporting lines, interactions with a specific committee (IOC), and the composition of their internal team, which are core elements of management role disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response process and policy, which falls under Risk Management Process. It is classified as Firm-Specific because it names a specific internal program (IT Security Incident Response Policy), even though the leadership roles listed are generic and excluded from the specific_facts list.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal processes for threat monitoring, third-party testing, and participation in industry exercises without naming specific tools, firms, or dates.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal security processes, such as monitoring, backups, and vendor review procedures, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named frameworks, or unique identifiers, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal security activities and monitoring processes without referencing specific tools, frameworks, or unique organizational details.


reasoning: The paragraph makes a materiality/non-materiality statement about cybersecurity risk impacts and cross-references risk factors, without describing an incident or detailing internal controls.

provider: openai


reasoning: This paragraph is general risk/boilerplate language about potential cybersecurity threats, impacts, and current lack of material effect, with no incident description and no cybersecurity-specific roles, named programs, dates, tools, or firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes and their integration into enterprise risk management. It does not provide incident details, named roles/committees, dates, tools, or other firm-unique specifics beyond generic descriptions.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Board’s oversight and briefing/cadence regarding cybersecurity risk and incidents, but it contains no named committees/roles beyond generic terms (Board, President/CEO, General Counsel) and no firm-unique programs, tools, dates, or standards.


category_confidence: medium

specificity_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph centers on oversight/requirements for third-party service providers (certifications and breach reporting) in support of the company’s cybersecurity risk assessment. It does not describe an actual incident.


specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph is centered on board-level oversight by the Audit Committee and the reporting flow to it, which fits Board Governance. However, the extracted details rely on generic governance terms (Audit Committee, quarterly cadence, board of directors) without unique firm identifiers or hard verifiable facts beyond standard roles.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Company’s internal risk management and cybersecurity program activities (identification/assessment/mitigation), and how cybersecurity is integrated into its ERM, including review by the CISO—so it is primarily a Risk Management Process rather than an incident or third-party/vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Information Security Officer’s role, reporting line to the Chief Risk Officer, responsibilities (e.g., incident response, business continuity), and qualifications.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to Item 1A risk factors and includes generic cybersecurity materiality consequences without describing any specific incident, framework, roles, or processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes GAN’s own information security programs and risk management approach (program alignment and security functions) rather than an actual incident or board-level oversight. It also references ISO and NIST cyber security frameworks, but contains no firm-unique program names, tools, roles, or dates.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity governance and operating practices (incident response plan coverage, testing/training, risk assessments, monitoring by the IT team, threat modeling, vulnerability scanning, and penetration testing). It does not describe an actual incident, nor does it focus centrally on vendor oversight, board-only governance, or material financial impacts.


reasoning: The paragraph is explicitly about the Board of Directors’ responsibility and activities for overseeing cybersecurity risk and reviewing related processes, with the board meeting cadence and oversight described.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity integration into its ERM, including risk assessment, treatment (accept vs. mitigate), monitoring, and reporting processes. It contains firm-unique details such as ERM/ERA program names and a 12-category ERM structure with Cybersecurity as one category.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on board-level oversight (board delegating cybersecurity oversight to a board audit committee and receiving reports). While it includes named cybersecurity-related roles/committee, these are governance descriptions without firm-unique identifiers, dates, products, or external verifiable metrics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Audit Committee and Board oversight of cybersecurity risk management, including what the committee reviews and with which roles (CIO and CISO). It includes board/committee governance details rather than internal risk processes alone.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity threat identification/assessment activities (monitoring, scanning, reviews, and ongoing investment), with third parties included as part of the overall risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses general cybersecurity risk management programs and the possibility that existing/future controls and processes may not be effective, but it does not describe a real incident or provide firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk identification and assessment process, including an InfoSec team’s activities and a dedicated process for third-party provider-related risks.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the Audit Committee and full Board oversight of information security/cybersecurity risk and reporting to the Board. However, it uses generic governance language without cybersecurity-specific named roles, committee names beyond the standard Audit Committee, or any firm-specific programs, dates, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity program, incident response plan, and how monitoring, vulnerability remediation, and incident handling are structured, including references to escalation responsibilities. It is not centered on a vendor as a separate third-party risk program, but rather as a component of the company’s own risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes ABERCROMBIE & FITCH's internal cybersecurity policies, controls, and repeated risk assessments used to prioritize and manage information risks, including how controls are based on specific frameworks (CIS Critical Security Controls and PCI DSS).


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company’s information security leadership, including the named CDIO/CISO role, reporting line, tenure, and qualifications, with oversight activities tied to the TCRC.


reasoning: The paragraph is explicitly about Board/Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks and describes the formation and charter requirements of a Cybersecurity Risk Subcommittee.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Alternus’s internal cybersecurity risk approach and how assessments and monitoring are incorporated into its policies and enterprise risk management. The central topic is its own risk management process, anchored to the NIST framework.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal security preparedness and risk approach (incident response planning, tabletop exercises, business continuity/disaster recovery, monitoring/controls), which fits the internal risk management process category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity processes (monitoring, tests, identification and response) rather than a disclosed incident or board/management role. No named roles, frameworks, tools/products, dates, or other firm-specific details are provided.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity escalation and investigation workflow (who is notified, committee risk rating, and required reporting timelines), which is primarily a risk management process. It also includes named internal roles/committees, making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on whether previously experienced and currently contemplated cybersecurity issues/incidents would materially affect the company’s business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition, without describing a specific incident or cyber-operations/process details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on oversight responsibilities of the Board and a named Cybersecurity Committee, with governance/oversight structure described alongside management reporting lines.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on board/committee responsibility and delegation—specifically the Audit Committee and a named Cybersecurity Subcommittee with its establishment and responsibilities—making Board Governance the best fit.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management program and protocols (identification/assessment/mitigation/response) and how it is integrated into overall risk management. It also mentions an annual third-party assessment, which is part of the internal risk management approach rather than being exclusively vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risks and how those findings are escalated to the full board. It also states management’s responsibility is carried out via programs led by named cybersecurity and other C-suite roles (CISO, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Financial Officer).


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes how the company’s cybersecurity program and policies are integrated into operations and based on a framework for risk management (preserving CIA/A and identifying/preventing/mitigating/responding). While it mentions the Board and Audit Committee, the main focus is the company’s cybersecurity approach rather than individual governance details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on board and (audit) committee oversight and reporting of cybersecurity risks/incidents. However, it does not include any cybersecurity-specific roles, non-generic committees from the ✓ list, named tools/programs, vendors, or dates, so it contains no qualifying firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes OFS Advisor/IT Department cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures (e.g., vulnerability management, assessments, oversight) and how they are implemented internally, which fits Risk Management Process. It also references a named framework (NIST CSF), making it Sector-Adapted, though it is largely generic and lacks firm-unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the named Director of IT Infrastructure & Security and describes reporting relationships for the cybersecurity program (rather than describing an incident or solely an internal risk process).


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes NorthWestern Energy Group’s own processes and requirements for third-party onboarding and ongoing monitoring (risk management and monitoring), rather than making vendor oversight the sole central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own incident detection, response, and recovery processes and related planning/exercises, which is internal risk management. It also explicitly references the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF), making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity monitoring and response processes (assessments, roadmap progress, metrics, prevention/detection/mitigation/remediation, and an incident response/notification plan) and how they are governed internally. Management and committee reporting is present, but the core subject is the company’s risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CISO’s responsibilities and qualifications (reporting/role scope, education, team oversight), which is characteristic of a management-role description rather than internal risk processes or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the potential material impact of cybersecurity threats and states there are no known material breaches or significant related expenses, with a cross-reference to Risk Factors. It does not describe a specific incident or provide firm-specific cyber governance/process details beyond generic references.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity program elements (controls, monitoring, incident response policies, and tools/processes) used to mitigate cyber risk. It is therefore primarily an internal risk management process rather than an incident disclosure or third-party risk oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general security awareness and preparedness activities (training, phishing simulations, tabletop exercises) without naming any specific roles, programs with unique identifiers, standards, tools, dates, or other firm-unique facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on how management-level ERM structures handle risk and specifically references the CISO/CDO providing information security action plans, which makes it primarily about management involvement rather than a board committee or a standalone process discussion.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the company’s named cybersecurity leadership (CISO/CITO/CEO reporting) and details the CISO and Information Security team’s qualifications, certifications, and experience, which is management-role content.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity incident (October 2023), describes the unauthorized access/download scope involving 23andMe.com accounts, and lists post-incident response actions and system/process changes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the Board and its (Audit) Committee oversee cybersecurity and receive incident updates, but it uses only generic governance terms with no firm-specific roles, dates, tools, or frameworks. The only substantive topic is board-level oversight, so it fits Board Governance rather than incident disclosure or risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the firm’s internal cybersecurity and infrastructure assessment activities (patch/vulnerability management, access controls, DR/BC considerations, and threat monitoring/maintenance) rather than a board/management role or an actual incident.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses prior cyber incident timing and states a materiality/financial impact conclusion about cybersecurity threats, without describing the incident details or response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph is a forward-looking materiality statement (no material cyber incident; immaterial expenses; no reasonably likely material cybersecurity risks) and a cross-reference to Item 1A, with no incident narrative or internal process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management program and how it uses frameworks to identify, assess, and manage risks.


reasoning: This paragraph is generalized risk/disclaimer language and primarily cross-references the Risk Factors section, with no substantive discussion of internal processes, incidents, roles, vendors, or named standards.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management processes (assess, identify, manage risks to IT systems and data) without naming incidents, roles, committees, or any specific framework/standard.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity measures and how risk processes are incorporated into its ERM program and evaluated against the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. While it references Board/management oversight, the primary focus is internal processes and coordination, not committee governance or an incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal information security governance body (ISC) and how it drives information security initiatives and priorities, led by the CISO. It also includes CISO qualifications (years of experience and specific certifications), making it more about the company’s cyber risk management process than board oversight or third-party risk.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal cybersecurity testing/training and that senior management evaluates results to refine policies and processes. External experts are mentioned only as supporting internal evaluation and are not the central topic, and there are no named roles, standards, systems, dates, or third-party firms.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Chief Information Security Officer’s role, qualifications, reporting line, and oversight, which fits Management Role rather than internal risk processes or incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is focused on the Board and its Audit Committee overseeing cybersecurity risk, including meeting cadence and reporting, which clearly indicates board governance. However, it uses generic governance language (e.g., Audit Committee, Board of Directors, annual/quarterly cadence) without any firm-specific roles, named committees beyond a standard one, dates, tools, or frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on named management roles (VP of IT/Information Security Officer) and describes their responsibilities and reporting/updating relationships, including the committee they brief.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including the date of determination, the unauthorized access by a third party, containment actions, and business disruption/investigation steps.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access), the response actions taken (activate incident procedure, investigate/contain/remediate), and operational impact (disruptions and limited access to financial and operating reporting systems). It includes a concrete incident date, making it firm-specific rather than purely boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a real incident narrative with a specific date, describes what the threat actor accessed (data types and account elements), and outlines response steps (activate incident response to investigate/contain/remediate), along with scoping to Dropbox Sign only.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main focus is oversight of third-party providers (charter expectations, pre-engagement security assessments, and ongoing compliance monitoring). It also includes general internal training and insurance, but third-party risk management is the dominant theme.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates an actual cybersecurity incident (nation-state actor gaining access and exfiltrating data, followed by ongoing attempts to access internal systems/source code repositories and evolving investigations), which fits Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access), includes the detection date and the company’s response actions, and states operational impact (disruption/limited access to financial and operating reporting systems).


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily a forward-looking limitation statement and a materiality conclusion for fiscal 2025 (no cyber risks materially affecting or reasonably anticipated to materially affect business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition), without describing a specific incident or internal cyber process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing/disclosed cybersecurity incident’s status (access restored, systems impacted, data stolen/destroyed, contingency/backup actions, and continued operations) rather than governance, strategy, or general risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing cybersecurity incident (unlawful access, exfiltration of video meeting and screen images, extortion threat) and the company’s response actions and business/operational impact (offline period affecting operations and potentially first quarter fiscal 2026 results). It contains no extractable firm-specific details such as named systems, tools, dates, or external firms.


reasoning: The paragraph provides an incident narrative with specific dates (Jan 12 and Jan 13, 2024), describes unauthorized access and exfiltration from employee email accounts, and notes investigation/impact statements.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s intended internal cybersecurity risk management program and operational processes (identification, assessment, monitoring, vulnerability management, testing, and reviews). It does not disclose an actual incident, and vendor involvement is only mentioned as a supporting component rather than the central topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual data incident (what was obtained, by whom, approximate scale, and what was not compromised) along with investigation and regulator involvement, which is characteristic of incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access by a third party), includes response/containment actions, and states remediation status as of the filing date.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (data exfiltration), including investigative findings (exfiltrated client files, presence of personal information), and ongoing response actions (analysis and client notification). It contains no firm-specific technical identifiers, named parties, tools, dates, or quantified details suitable for extracting specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is solely a standard safe-harbor/forward-looking statements disclaimer and does not provide substantive cybersecurity incident details or internal risk/process facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (illegal access, temporary access limitations, halted production, and limited data exfiltration) and response/notification actions. It contains no named roles, tools, third parties, specific dates, dollar amounts, or other firm-unique verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses whether the incident is material and the expected costs/impact on financial condition and results of operations, but it does not describe what occurred in the incident or any incident-specific scope details.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates an actual cybersecurity incident, including what the attacker did (defaced website), the web address involved, and specific response actions taken on August 25, 2025.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific unauthorized-access incident, including when it began/detection date and the data/system access and exfiltration scope, along with response actions. It also includes multiple hard verifiable facts (dates and a quantified percentage of accounts), making it highly specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access to customer personal information by a third-party provider), the response actions taken (investigation and law enforcement notification), and resulting impacts (customer notification; no evidence of misuse). However, it contains no qualifying firm-specific identifiers (e.g., named experts/firms, systems, exact dates, or quantified impacts).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real incident (system outage) with a specific date and details of unauthorized network access, encryption of critical applications, and file exfiltration, plus ongoing operational impacts and remediation.


reasoning: The paragraph describes operational impacts from a cyber incident (interrupted replenishment, delayed order fulfillment, cancellations, delayed wholesale shipments) and the current remediation status (inventory replenishment resumed, orders caught up, IT systems and data substantially restored).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access to file systems), includes response actions (incident response and business continuity protocols, containment/remediation), and states operational impact (temporary interruption) and recovery status.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a specific cybersecurity incident (detection date, unauthorized activity, encryption/data theft, and response actions) and describes operational impact and affected systems/data.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality conclusions and expected financial impact (insurance coverage and potential uncovered costs) without describing what happened in the cybersecurity incident.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity/IT disruption incident, including what was affected (website, email systems, email delivery) and the response timeline (July 25 awareness; July 29 restoration). It also describes investigation findings and remedial actions (reinstatement and ongoing mitigation).


reasoning: The paragraph does not describe what happened in the incident; instead it discusses the company’s preliminary financial expense estimate and the ongoing assessment of financial impact. The only firm-specific, verifiable details are the quantified cost range for remediation and customer reimbursements.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with dates, unauthorized activity on IT systems, investigation/remediation actions, and the status of the threat actor and authorities notifications.


category_confidence: low

reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope of sensitive data involved (what call/text content is excluded and what records/datatypes are included, such as telephone-number interaction records and cell site IDs), which is characteristic of an incident’s affected data. However, it does not explicitly reference a specific incident event in the paragraph, making classification less certain.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including notification date, the threat actor, unauthorized access to a specific environment, and data access/exfiltration beginning in May 2023 with remediation actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident’s status (contained/remediated), operational impacts, and includes a dated cost estimate ($388,000 as of September 9, 2025), which are hallmark incident-disclosure details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on remediation costs being reimbursed by insurance and states the incident has not had (and is not reasonably likely to have) a material financial impact, without describing specific incident events or affected systems.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses an ongoing investigation and the perceived impact of an unauthorized-access incident (including that it did not appear to materially impact IP protection) and mentions operational effects (website offline), but provides no specific, firm-verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial effects (delayed/shifted revenue recognition, revenue loss, one-time expenses) from an incident, without describing the incident’s technical details or operational scope.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Company’s assessment of business and financial materiality from the Incident (earnings impact and uncertainty about further impacts) without describing what happened in the Incident itself. Therefore it fits Strategy Integration.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses whether an incident is expected to be material and provides financial-results guidance for specified quarter-end periods, without describing incident details. That fits Strategy Integration (materiality/financial impact), not Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses expected financial/business impact, cost components, and offsets from cybersecurity insurance, without narrating what happened in the incident or describing technical scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real incident, including the ransomware event date, affected internal IT systems, and key circumstances of origin and response (ongoing investigation, engagement of cybersecurity experts, and recovery). It also provides incident-related scope and what actions the company believes are (not) needed afterward.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including detection date, response actions (isolation measures, disruption to business processes), investigation steps, and notifications.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing, real cybersecurity-related disruption (timing, affected systems, restoration status) resulting from CDK’s incident, including which systems remain offline.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (unauthorized activity, encryption by a threat actor, investigation/containment actions, and operational impact on manufacturing and order fulfillment) with incident timing.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the company’s response and operational impact of an actual cybersecurity incident (halt of operations, restart, restoration timing, and recovery outcome). It includes verifiable details like approximate disruption duration and the mid-June restoration timeframe.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident (CDK’s June 19, 2024 incident) and provides concrete impact details and remediation status, including restoration of affected systems (DMS/CRM) and operational disruptions in July.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access), containment/response actions (activating an incident response plan, taking systems offline), involvement of external experts and law enforcement, and operational impact (temporarily halting and restarting production operations).


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on liquidity/financing terms (interest and lease payment waivers) and the resulting dollar amount ($3.7M) rather than describing the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates an actual incident (unauthorized third party access), includes response actions (contain/assess/remediate and investigation), and provides an incident timeline date.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was discovered, the unauthorized access/encryption/monitoring software claim, response actions, and operational impact (disruptions and taking systems offline).


reasoning: The paragraph describes ongoing investigation into a cybersecurity incident, states there is no evidence of access to customer/client data, and provides impact/materiality conclusions; however, it contains no named roles, dates, tools, or other verifiable firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific real cybersecurity incident, including detection date, unauthorized access, response actions (incident response procedure and external experts), and operational impact (disruptions/limited access to financial and operating reporting systems). The facts are incident-specific but do not include named tools/firms or multiple hard external verifiable details beyond the date.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation and states that a cybercrime organization accessed and exfiltrated limited data (including customer/employee personally identifiable information), along with notification and law-enforcement/regulatory response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board and audit-committee oversight of cybersecurity risk management, but it uses generic entities (board, audit committee, management) without any cybersecurity-specific roles, named committees beyond the standard “Audit Committee,” dates, frameworks, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management integration and review/mitigation processes (including ERM review timing), so it fits Risk Management Process rather than incident disclosure or board governance as the primary topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a detected cybersecurity incident, the Company’s response actions (incident response/business continuity, isolating Canadian operations, engaging forensics professionals), and resulting customer service delays and recovery timing.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on identified cybersecurity management roles (CIO and Information Security Director) and the team supporting them, including experience and responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph provides an ongoing narrative of a real cyberattack, including impacted operations (patient access and pharmacy/claims/payment services) and investigation of impacted data.


reasoning: This paragraph only provides a cross-reference to another section for cybersecurity risk factor discussion and does not disclose any substantive cybersecurity governance, processes, or incident details.


reasoning: This paragraph is general materiality/risk language and a cross-reference to Item 1A, with no incident description, named roles/committees, specific frameworks, standards, or other firm-unique cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a named management role (the CTO) describing responsibilities and reporting/interaction related to cybersecurity risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal cybersecurity-related activities (process compliance changes and managing threats/incidents) but includes no named roles, tools, dates, frameworks, or company-specific identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes HPE’s internal cybersecurity and digital risk management program, including how it identifies and mitigates cyber risks, and references the Global CISO and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework as part of its risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph is focused on the absence of material incidents and immaterial costs/penalties, with only general forward-looking statements about contracting an investigation firm; it does not describe a specific incident or company-specific details beyond generic language.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on assigning cybersecurity risk responsibilities to the chief financial officer, but uses only generic titles and non-specific language without any named role (e.g., CISO/CTO), committees specific to cybersecurity, dates, tools, or firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee and describes its oversight role for cybersecurity risks, with senior leadership informing it. However, it uses only generic governance terms (e.g., “Audit Committee,” “Chief Financial Officer,” “senior leadership”) and contains no firm-specific or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board and committee oversight of cybersecurity (training, approvals, and quarterly reporting) but contains no cybersecurity-specific named roles, committees, programs, products, dates, or other firm-unique facts from the ✓ IS list.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity controls, procedures, incident classification/escalation, and management visibility/reporting workflow, but it contains no firm-specific identifiers, named frameworks/standards, roles, dates, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the lack of material impact and on updates to an information security strategy, with only generic references to prior incidents and threat volume (no named standards, roles, dates, tools, or incident scope).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal incident response and handling procedures, including escalation to designated internal teams and committees, rather than an actual incident outcome.


reasoning: The paragraph is written about an individual (Mr. Gharib) describing his cybersecurity-related responsibilities (hiring security personnel, budgets, incident preparation, process approval). However, it does not identify a cybersecurity job title (e.g., CISO/CIO) or any named framework/committee/product, so the content lacks qualifying firm-specific facts under the provided criteria.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management activities (training, awareness updates, testing, penetration testing, and assessments) rather than a specific incident, board oversight, or third-party/vendor controls. It contains no firm-unique identifiers (e.g., named systems/tools, dates, roles, or standards) from the ✓ IS list, making it generic.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on how Apollo integrates cybersecurity into its ERM and risk management approach, describing the internal process and referenced standards; board oversight is mentioned but not as the primary subject. It references recognized frameworks (NIST and ISO), making it sector-adapted rather than firm-unique.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own internal cybersecurity program integration into risk management and related internal programs (ERM, business continuity/crisis, third-party risk, insurance risk, employee compliance). It does not name any specific framework, role, program identifier, or verifiable external details.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on named cybersecurity and technology management roles (CISO and CTO) and their qualifications, tenure, and experience, which is characteristic of management role disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment and mitigation approach (likelihood/impact, identifying vulnerabilities, and incident response plans) without naming any specific roles, dates, tools, or standards.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of materially affecting incidents and focuses on spending/resources such as cyber insurance costs and potential materiality, without describing any actual incident or internal risk-management process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the Company uses external experts to evaluate and test its own cybersecurity risk management systems (audits, threat assessments, penetration testing), but does not focus primarily on vendor/security contractual oversight. It includes no named roles, tools, frameworks, dates, or firm-specific identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a materiality conclusion about cybersecurity threats (no identified threats materially affecting business/financial results) and includes general risk/assurance language, without describing any specific incident or company-specific programs, roles, tools, dates beyond 2023, or external frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on Board/Audit Committee oversight and continuing education, including briefings and presentations to board members. It also names specific cybersecurity leadership roles (CIO, CISO, CIRO) as the presenters.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on a specific individual’s cybersecurity responsibilities (managing material cyber risks and incident reporting), with subsequent generic references to executive officers and the board.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, but it provides no firm-specific details (no named roles, programs, frameworks, or dates).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own incident response planning and operational processes (triage, severity assessment, investigation, escalation, containment, remediation). It does not describe a real incident event, and it provides no firm-specific identifiers, dates, tools, or named standards.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how cybersecurity risk is evaluated and addressed through the company’s ERM process and IT risk management, coordinated with a security executive, which is characteristic of internal risk management rather than incident details or board oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph provides materiality conclusions about cybersecurity incidents and related expenses/penalties without describing any actual incident or internal risk process. It mainly directs readers to the Risk Factors section, making it strategy/materiality integration rather than incident disclosure or risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how the company identifies, prevents, mitigates, and escalates cybersecurity risks and incident controls, which is an internal risk management process. It does not name any cybersecurity roles, committees, frameworks, tools, dates, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on named management roles (Vice President of Information Systems and Chief Financial Officer) and describes their tenure and oversight of the company’s cyber risk management, making it management-role focused rather than an internal process or incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity exercises and monitoring/incident response capabilities, but it does not name any specific firm, tool/product, internal program identifier, date, or other uniquely verifiable details beyond generic references to independent firms and third parties.


reasoning: The paragraph’s main focus is board/committee oversight of cybersecurity risk and strategy, including assignment to a committee and escalation to upper management. However, it uses standard/generic governance terms (e.g., Audit Committee) and does not include any qualifying firm-specific roles, tools, dates, or programs.


reasoning: The paragraph is a general materiality conclusion about whether known cybersecurity threats (including prior incidents) have materially affected the company, with a cross-reference to the Risk Factors section, but it does not describe any incident or internal process.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on oversight and reporting of cybersecurity risk at the board level (including audit committee reporting). It also names a cybersecurity-relevant management role (Vice President of Operations), but the dominant grammatical focus is board governance.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses general potential financial impact (material adverse effect) and cybersecurity insurance coverage limits, without describing an incident or internal risk-management activities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a board-established standing Cybersecurity Committee and explains how the committee chair’s cybersecurity oversight training supports oversight of cybersecurity risk.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to a risk factor section and does not provide any cybersecurity governance, management, process details, or incident description. It contains no firm-specific facts beyond generic forward-looking phrasing.


reasoning: The paragraph is primarily about named cybersecurity management roles (CISO/CTO), their reporting line, and their responsibilities for cybersecurity and related risk oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes QUINSTREET’s internal cybersecurity risk management program activities (committee briefings, employee training, and security policies), making it a risk management process disclosure rather than an incident or third-party risk topic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes security testing and program reviews used to evaluate and improve the company’s cybersecurity controls, which is part of internal risk management. It relies on generic descriptions of third-party testing without named standards, tools, roles, dates, or firms.


reasoning: The paragraph is general, forward-looking language about the importance of cybersecurity and potential material adverse impacts, with no incident description and no specific roles, frameworks, dates, or firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management activities (assessing threat risks, due diligence, and oversight) related to third-party providers as part of its internal processes, without naming specific frameworks, roles, dates, or unique firm details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity practices and internal programs (tools, tabletop exercises, training, phishing testing, and penetration testing cadence) rather than an incident or a board/management role. No firm-specific facts (named roles/teams, tools, dates, third-party firms) are provided, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risk, including update cadence and committee-level responsibility, which makes it Board governance content. It uses generic committee/board language (e.g., “Audit Committee,” “Board of Directors,” “at least an annual basis”) without any cybersecurity-specific role, internal program identifier, named framework, or firm-unique facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is explicitly about Board-level oversight and delegation to a committee for cybersecurity responsibilities. However, it uses generic governance language (e.g., Board, Audit Committee, risk oversight) without firm-unique details beyond that delegation.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board/committee oversight of cybersecurity risk (delegation to the audit committee and its responsibilities). Although it mentions an audit committee and reporting cadence, these details are largely generic governance language without firm-specific program names, dates, roles, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management program and integration into its enterprise risk management process. It contains no named frameworks, tools, roles, dates, or other firm-unique specifics beyond generic description, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on a named cybersecurity management role (Director of Cybersecurity), describing responsibilities, experience, and reporting/update flow into IT and an executive committee.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk management processes and how they integrate with overall risk management, but it contains only generic governance language (board/Audit Committee) and no named roles, frameworks, dates, or unique program details.


reasoning: The paragraph is focused on third-party risk management—identifying/mitigating risks from vendors, suppliers, and other partners using third-party service providers—making Third-Party Risk the best fit. It contains no named roles, dates, tools, frameworks, or other company-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company’s own cybersecurity insurance oversight and internal continuity/disaster recovery/incident response readiness testing. While it includes a specific management role, the core topic is internal risk management processes rather than an incident or vendor oversight.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own vulnerability assessment/vulnerability management and how it supports its cybersecurity risk management processes. It contains no named frameworks, roles, products/tools, specific dates, or other firm-specific details beyond generic practices.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own internal audit/risk assessment process and how cybersecurity risks are evaluated and reported for prioritization, without describing an actual incident or board/management roles.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity measures and processes (e.g., incident response, disaster recovery/business continuity, risk assessments, encryption, monitoring), but it contains no firm-specific identifiers, named roles, named products, dates, or verifiable quantities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal security operations (24x7 SOC, incident severity matrix, triage, escalation) as part of its incident-handling process, without board/management roles or an actual incident narrative.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity approach and alignment with a named framework (NIST) and internal policies/standards, rather than any incident or third-party oversight. Category is therefore best matched to Risk Management Process, though the internal governance/IR specifics are not detailed.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity incident prevention/detection/mitigation process (monitoring systems, assessing severity, and following escalation procedures in an incident response plan). It does not name any cybersecurity-specific role (e.g., CISO), framework, tool, or other firm-unique identifiers, so it is generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general internal oversight processes tied to third-party service providers but provides no named roles, standards, dates, tools, vendors, or incident details. It is primarily forward-looking and generic, so it fits generic disclosure rather than incident or firm-specific risk details.


reasoning: The paragraph does not describe what happened in the incident; it focuses on cooperation with law enforcement and materiality/financial impact conclusions (no material impact and not reasonably likely to affect financial condition). There are no firm-specific details, named roles, dates, or tools to qualify as specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized activity) along with response actions (contain/assess/remediate, isolate systems) and includes a specific action date (December 20, 2023). It therefore fits Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a real cybersecurity incident, including the detection date, what was accessed (IT systems), and specific response actions (investigation, activating an incident response plan, shutting down systems, notifying law enforcement).


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a specific cybersecurity incident, including an event date, what the threat actor did (access and encryption), and concrete response actions (containment, internal investigation, external specialists, restricting IT access).


reasoning: The paragraph does not describe what happened in the incident; it only discusses that the incident is ongoing and its potential/continuing material impact on business operations and financial condition/result of operations.


reasoning: The paragraph describes actions taken to contain/remediate an incident and provides incident scope/impact (no compromise of IT systems, no unauthorized transactions, no fund transfers, and normal transaction capability).


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident outcome (unauthorized access and data exfiltration) and includes response actions (notifications) and affected data scope (limited data including some PII), which is central to incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes detection of a real cybersecurity incident and summarizes incident response actions (containment, investigation, regulator/law enforcement notification), anchored by a specific incident detection date.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity controls and processes (e.g., incident detection/response, vulnerability management, disaster recovery, encryption, monitoring, and risk assessments), which is best categorized as its risk management process. It does not provide firm-specific identifiers like named roles, internal program names, specific dates, tools, products, or third-party firms.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal IT department responsibilities for assessing/managing cybersecurity risks and monitoring prevention/mitigation/detection/remediation as part of its cybersecurity risk management process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an incident’s timeline and scope (notification in June 2023, activity as early as May 2023) and specific impacted system (SharePoint), along with response actions and conclusions about materiality.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses expected material financial/operational impact of an incident (quarter ended Dec. 31, 2024 vs. full-year 2024) and associated risk/attention/liability effects, without describing what the incident entailed.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident’s operational impact (shipping, receiving, manufacturing, support functions), ongoing interim restoration status, evidence that files were taken, and planned actions including notifying individuals and regulators.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic forward-looking statements disclaimer with no cybersecurity-specific governance, processes, incidents, or firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the incident’s unknown scope and provides materiality conclusions about operational and financial impact, without describing what happened in the incident or any incident-specific technical details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident (unauthorized activity), includes response actions, and provides a specific incident-related date.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including the date it was discovered, what the threat actor did (illegal access and encryption), and the response actions taken (containment/remediation, internal investigation, external specialists, restricting access).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s ongoing investigation results regarding an apparent cybersecurity incident (e.g., whether malware/ransomware occurred and whether the actor has access), which is core incident-disclosure content, even though it lacks firm-unique details.


reasoning: Although it references an Incident, the paragraph’s main substance is the financial/materiality impact on earnings per diluted share for Q2, including dollar amounts and quarter end date rather than describing what happened in the incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity-related disclosure delay and ongoing incident-related efforts with law enforcement, including the status of apprehension and whether data is publicly available.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses expenses and asserts no reasonable likelihood of material financial impact, plus general risk factors arising from the incident, without describing what occurred or the incident scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation’s preliminary estimate of what the threat actor stole (personal data) and related scope/affected data types, which is substantive incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident’s outcome (additional data exfiltrated) and the confirmed scope of the affected data, including PII and PHI, which is characteristic of incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes operational impacts from an incident (distribution delays, partially limited online operations) and includes incident-related scope, timing (“as of February 12, 2025”), and business impact (five-percent of operating revenue).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific, real cybersecurity incident (ransomware) including discovery actions, containment steps, expert engagement, investigation, and planned notifications/regulatory steps.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality/financial impact conclusions and ongoing remediation risk implications, without describing the incident’s events or response actions. The only operational scope reference is non-incident-narrative boilerplate (“limited to the Dropbox Sign infrastructure”).


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident, including unauthorized access, misdirected funds, deletion of email messages, and recovery status, which fits incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the ongoing analysis of an actual data exfiltration event and specifies the types of information exfiltrated (IT and financial information). It also ties the matter to preparation of a future 10-K filing, but the central topic is incident scope.


reasoning: This paragraph provides only a materiality conclusion about the cybersecurity incident’s lack of material impact on business and financial condition, without describing the incident or any cyber controls/processes.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses ongoing/possible expenses and materiality/financial impact assessment related to the incident, without describing what happened or any incident scope or system/data effects. It is therefore financial/materiality-focused strategy integration rather than incident disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity-related operational disruption, including unauthorized access, activation of a response plan, containment/assessment/remediation, and restoration timelines and impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing disruption/network interruption, restoration efforts, and scope (Change Healthcare systems affected while other systems are operational), which is incident-specific disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial/operational materiality (no material impacts, material non-recurring expenses accrued in Q1) and cyber insurance rather than describing what occurred in the cybersecurity incident. No qualifying firm-specific details (dates, tools, amounts, named parties) are provided.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access) and includes incident response actions taken after discovery, with a specific incident identification date.


reasoning: The paragraph provides financial impact from the cybersecurity incident (additional expenses and unfulfilled revenue) and forward-looking fulfillment timing, without describing the incident itself. This fits strategy/business impact integration rather than incident disclosure or internal risk/process details.


reasoning: The paragraph narrates a specific cybersecurity incident, including when AT&T learned of the claim, the alleged unauthorized access path, the exfiltration window, and the affected records/time period. The focus is on the incident and scope rather than internal processes or financial impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (unauthorized activity), the company’s response actions (containment/assessment/remediation and isolating systems), and includes a specific incident-related date (December 20, 2023).


reasoning: The paragraph describes an active investigation into an unauthorized access incident, including potential exfiltration and possible legal/regulatory notifications based on findings, which is substantive incident-related disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses expected materiality/financial impact of a cybersecurity incident and whether it has caused disruption, without describing the incident’s events, affected systems/data, or response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes actions taken in response to an existing cybersecurity incident (investigation, working with law enforcement, and notifying regulators/users about unauthorized access), but it does not provide any verifiable incident details or named specifics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident, including when it was discovered, unauthorized access to company data, and response/investigation actions.


reasoning: This paragraph focuses on costs and expected financial/materiality impacts from an already-referenced cybersecurity incident, providing specific dollar amounts, production duration, and the affected quarter—without describing the incident’s technical details or scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with an explicit detection date, actions taken (contain/assess/remediate, investigate with external specialists, activate incident response plan, shut down some systems), and an outcome (threat actor ejected). The inclusion of July 10, 2024 and incident-response activation makes it firm-specific, though it lacks hard third-party/tool names or quantified scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident (data exfiltration from information systems) and the company’s response actions (containment and investigation). It includes a specific incident date, but no named tools/firms/products to reach Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph is a standard forward-looking statements disclaimer and contains no cybersecurity-specific governance, processes, incidents, or material facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality/financial impact and likelihood of financial condition effects, without describing what the incident actually was.


reasoning: The paragraph provides an update tied to the Change Healthcare cyberattack and describes actions/activities (data assessment, impacted-individual support, notifications, and service restoration), making it incident-related rather than purely strategic or generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes actions taken after discovering a real cybersecurity incident (activation of response protocols, containment including taking the network offline, investigation with third parties, notifying law enforcement, restoring systems, enhancing monitoring). No firm-specific roles, tools, dates, or named firms/products are provided.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing handling steps (communicating with stakeholders, following safety standards, identifying incident effects) as part of internal operations, but it provides no incident-specific details (dates, scope, impacted systems) or other firm-specific cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident timeline (March 11 and March 18, 2026) including ransomware encryption and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of Company data, along with management’s materiality determination.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality of an alleged incident’s financial impact without describing what happened, when, or which systems/data were affected.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions taken in response to a cybersecurity incident (containment, monitoring, access control reviews, regulator/law enforcement notifications), but it provides no concrete incident-specific details such as dates, systems/data affected, or named parties/tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes what the company did after learning of an unauthorized activity (activating a cybersecurity response plan, internal investigation with external advisors, taking systems offline, notifying law enforcement, restoring systems, and assessing impacted data), which is incident response/impact disclosure rather than governance or risk process.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual incident’s impact (no password/private key compromise; no access to customer funds) and enumerates affected data categories under investigation.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity event, including the exfiltration of data, potential personal information, and the date learned (February 21, 2024), along with immediate containment and investigation actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access) and provides incident scope details, including the subset size of users and types of personal data involved, plus what is not evidenced as compromised.


reasoning: This paragraph is a procedural/legal disclaimer about incorporation and filing status, with no substantive cybersecurity or risk information.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real-time cybersecurity event (detected suspicious activity) and ongoing response actions (assessment, containment/remediation, isolating affected systems, investigation). It includes a specific incident detection date, making it firm-specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality conclusion about the cyber incident’s financial impact but does not describe what happened or any incident scope/response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing cybersecurity incident investigation (exfiltration, determining sensitive/personal information scope, and evaluating regulatory/legal notifications), but provides no hard identifiers, named entities, dates, tools, or amounts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on containment and ongoing remediation activities (reinforcing systems, strengthening threat surveillance) rather than describing incident details or material financial impacts. It also references working with cybersecurity experts as part of remediation, which is not specified enough to qualify as a distinct third-party risk disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes post-incident remediation status (third party removed, access restored, and integrity/completeness of impacted information confirmed), which is incident-related response language rather than governance, process, or strategy.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight and information flow to an audit committee and executive leadership, which is board-governance focused. However, it uses generic terms (e.g., board, audit committee, annual basis) with no cybersecurity-specific named roles, programs, committees, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on ongoing incident-related effects in terms of whether it will materially impact financial condition/results and provides subsidiary-level business continuity and EBITDA contribution context, without describing the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality/financial impact conclusions about a cybersecurity incident without describing what happened, its scope, or response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes that cybersecurity operating procedures are integrated into the company’s enterprise risk management (ERM) programs, but it provides no incident details, no named roles/committees, no specific frameworks/standards, and no verifiable firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity risk management process for assessing third-party vendors (using a risk-based approach), not requirements imposed solely by third parties.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general dependence on internal and third-party technology but does not specify any concrete cybersecurity risk management processes, vendor security requirements, or incident details.


reasoning: This is a forward-looking disclaimer and a cross-reference to another section for cybersecurity risks, with no substantive discussion of internal processes, roles, incidents, or named standards/frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph is focused on board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk management. However, it uses only generic governance terms (board, audit committee, committee charter) without any cybersecurity-specific roles, named non-generic committees, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on a named cybersecurity information security management role and its credentials and tenure (experience and start year).


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s own cybersecurity program as part of its enterprise risk management process, focusing on assessing and managing cyber risks. It contains no named roles, dates, tools, frameworks, or other firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generalized internal efforts to improve cybersecurity, resiliency, and internal controls, but contains no specific company programs, roles, standards, dates, or tools.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cyber risk management program and how it is integrated with enterprise risk management processes, but it contains no named roles, frameworks, dates, tools, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph is describing an individual’s background (management-related), but it does not include any cybersecurity-specific role, reporting line, committee, or cyber program details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the purpose of the company’s cybersecurity program (protecting information systems from threats) but provides no incident narrative and no named roles, frameworks, or firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general integration of cybersecurity risk management into enterprise risk management, but it provides no firm-specific mechanisms, roles, standards, or details beyond generic statements.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on a committee’s oversight of cybersecurity through receiving management reports and reporting back to the full Board. It contains only generic governance language with no named committee, dates, or cybersecurity-specific roles beyond a vague “Committee.”


reasoning: This paragraph describes the company’s own incident response/recovery preparedness activities (frameworks, simulations/tabletop exercises) but includes no named roles, standards, dates, products, or other firm-unique facts.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on the Board of Directors’ oversight and reporting mechanisms for cybersecurity, with the Board receiving reports from the CISO and CIO.


reasoning: This paragraph provides generic governance language about the board and executive officers without any cybersecurity-specific roles, named committees, frameworks, or incident/process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity practices (PII policy, employee training/testing cadence) as part of the company’s risk management, but it contains no firm-specific details or named roles/tools/frameworks beyond generic statements.


reasoning: The paragraph describes who is responsible for assessing and managing material cybersecurity risks, which is part of the company’s internal risk management process. However, it provides no named cybersecurity roles, dates, frameworks, or other firm-specific details, making it generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes oversight responsibilities tied to the board’s review of privacy/cyber compliance and specifically references the Cybersecurity Committee’s composition and performance.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general cybersecurity vulnerabilities and safeguards but does not mention any specific company program, framework, roles, dates, systems, or tools. It reads like boilerplate risk description rather than a defined internal risk-management process.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the identities/roles of leadership within the ISC (CIO and Director of IT Security, Risk and Compliance) and describes their risk management/cybersecurity experience, which is a management-role disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph is general and forward-looking about team qualifications, with no named roles, teams, programs, frameworks, dates, tools, or other firm-specific cybersecurity details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on how the company evaluates and monitors third-party IT service providers’ cybersecurity using third-party data (Security Scorecard), which is central to third-party risk oversight.


reasoning: This is a materiality/impact statement with no description of an actual cybersecurity event or response actions; it’s generic forward-looking disclosure about not having an incident that would materially affect business/financial outcomes.


reasoning: This sentence is generic description of e-mail/cloud services and mentions cybersecurity protections, but provides no incident, governance, internal process, or specific firm-specific details, dates, roles, tools, standards, or third-party oversight requirements.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the cybersecurity program as part of the company’s overall risk management approach, but it contains no named frameworks, roles, systems, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generic remediation steps (eradication, root-cause identification, prevention) but does not reference a specific company role, system, date, or framework.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on who implements cybersecurity risk assessment/management (management roles), specifically identifying that the CFO serves as the CISO and describing the CISO’s reliance on resources. This is primarily management role attribution rather than incident details or a standalone process/framework description.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board/audit-committee oversight and board briefings on cybersecurity risk management. However, it uses only generic governance language (e.g., audit committee, board, management) with no named cyber roles, committees beyond the standard “audit committee,” dates, frameworks, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing review and refinement of the company’s incident response plan and updates to procedures based on lessons learned, which is an internal risk management process. It contains no cybersecurity-specific named roles, standards, tools, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph’s grammatical subject is management, specifically the CIO and the VP of Information Security, describing their responsibility for the cybersecurity risk management program and supervision of personnel and consultants.


reasoning: The paragraph describes high-level cybersecurity program activities (threat intelligence, forums, external experts) but contains no named roles, frameworks, programs, dates, tools, or verifiable firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph is centered on a named-in-function internal cybersecurity coordinator’s responsibilities and reporting line, which is management-role content. However, it does not include any qualifying firm-specific cybersecurity title, committee, date, tool, or other verifiable fact from the ✓ IS list, so specificity is generic.


reasoning: The paragraph is focused on oversight by the Board and Audit Committee and management reporting to them about cybersecurity risks and incidents, without any firm-specific details beyond generic committee references.


reasoning: The paragraph provides a materiality/financial-impact statement (no significant breach and no related expenses/penalties/settlements) without describing any incident narrative or systems/data scope.


reasoning: The paragraph describes how management monitors internal cybersecurity incident prevention/detection/mitigation/remediation, but it does not identify any cybersecurity-specific roles, named committees/teams/frameworks, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: This paragraph provides a materiality statement about the absence of cybersecurity incidents affecting the company, without describing any incident details or cybersecurity governance/process specifics.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the absence of material incidents and that related costs/penalties and settlements were immaterial, without describing any actual incident events or affected systems.


reasoning: The grammatical subject is the CSO and CISO and the paragraph describes their process for staying informed and reporting updates. Board and committee reporting is included, but it is secondary to the management roles' responsibilities.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cyber insurance and mitigation of potential financial losses, without describing any specific incident or other firm-specific governance/process details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity risk management in general terms (developing and maintaining measures) but includes no incident narrative, named roles/programs, dates, frameworks, or specific company details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes internal cybersecurity training and awareness activities (phishing simulations and incident management training), which are part of the company’s risk management processes. However, it contains no firm-specific identifiers, dates, named tools/frameworks, roles, or other verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal processes for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risk across its Systems and Data, without naming roles, frameworks, dates, or other firm-unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Board receiving updates from committees/teams and the content of those updates, which is governance/oversight. However, it does not include any qualifying named roles/committees (e.g., “Audit Committee” is standard boilerplate) or other firm-specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s internal cybersecurity risk assessment and management approach, including monitoring and user training, but it does not name any specific framework, tools, roles, dates, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generic senior management roles for cybersecurity but does not provide any company-specific or uniquely identifying details beyond common C-suite titles; it is not board/committee oversight or an internal risk process description with substantive specifics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Thermon’s internal cybersecurity risk management system and its functions (identify, assess, mitigate), which is an internal risk management process. It contains no named roles, tools, dates, standards, or other firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes general training and policy communication but contains no named roles, frameworks, dates, systems, or other firm-specific cybersecurity facts.


reasoning: The paragraph explicitly discusses who handles day-to-day cybersecurity management (IT staff) and proposes changing that function, which is management-role focused. However, it contains no named roles, programs, standards, dates, tools, or other firm-unique specifics beyond generic statements about training and outsourcing.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company’s planned internal approach to identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks as part of its broader risk management processes, but it contains no concrete incident details, named roles, standards, tools, dates, or company-specific identifiers.