content_category: None/Other

category_confidence: high

specificity_confidence: high

reasoning: This is a cross-reference to risk factors with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.

provider: z-ai

stage: benchmark


content_category: Risk Management Process

reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal information security programs and risk management processes aligned with standard frameworks.


reasoning: This paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer about materiality and a cross-reference to risk factors, with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


content_category: Board Governance

specificity_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight role for cybersecurity risk management, with the committee as the grammatical subject throughout. It contains cybersecurity-specific titles (CIO and CISO) that make it firm-specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, with no specific facts, standards, or unique identifiers mentioned.


content_category: Third-Party Risk

reasoning: The paragraph focuses on requirements imposed on third-party service providers, making Third-Party Risk the appropriate category. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, resulting in a Generic Boilerplate specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Board as the grammatical subject throughout. It contains one specific fact (annual cadence of discussions), making it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board of Directors' oversight role for cybersecurity risks, with the Board as the primary grammatical subject throughout.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk assessment of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and potential consequences, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or standards that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


content_category: Management Role

reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Information Security Officer role, their reporting line to the CRO, and their qualifications, which falls under Management Role. It contains specific facts like the ISO's 20+ years of experience and direct reporting structure, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight role regarding cybersecurity risks, with the Audit Committee as the grammatical subject throughout.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity threats, with third parties mentioned as components of these processes rather than the central focus. The specific mention of 'Legal and Compliance, and Finance departments' as part of the team makes this Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, specifically how cybersecurity is integrated into their ERM framework, with named internal programs and specific organizational details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight responsibilities and governance structures, with the Board as the primary subject, making it Board Governance. It contains multiple firm-specific details including a named cybersecurity role, committee, and internal programs.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, including integration with ERM, based on recognized frameworks, and the CISO's reporting structure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the board as the grammatical subject throughout.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's oversight role for cybersecurity risks, which falls under Board Governance. It contains no specific facts unique to Veradigm Inc., making it Generic Boilerplate.


content_category: Strategy Integration

reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and business impact of cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and assessing cybersecurity risks, with the InfoSec team as the central actor responsible for monitoring threats and applying controls.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes including incident response planning, risk assessments, and mitigation measures, with no specific facts unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Trustee's generic cyber risk management program without any specific details unique to CROSS TIMBERS ROYALTY TRUST.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Alternus's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risk, including their framework, team structure, assessment methods, and integration with other business functions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying, assessing, and responding to cybersecurity threats and incidents, which clearly falls under Risk Management Process. It contains multiple specific facts including a cybersecurity-specific role, named committees, and a specific timeframe that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cybersecurity risks, describing the Board's primary responsibility, the Audit Committee's role, and the formation of a Cybersecurity Risk Subcommittee with two independent directors who must have specific cybersecurity qualifications.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for developing, implementing, and reviewing cybersecurity controls based on risk assessments and multiple security frameworks.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the board/committee as the grammatical subject, making it Board Governance. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes including vulnerability management, monitoring, and incident response planning, which falls under Risk Management Process. It names the NIST framework but contains no unique company-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes including incident response plans, tabletop exercises, business continuity plans, and security awareness training, without any specific details unique to Cinemark Holdings.


reasoning: The paragraph assigns oversight responsibility for cybersecurity risks to the board of directors, making it primarily about board governance rather than management roles or specific risk processes.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CDIO/CISO role, reporting structure, experience, and interaction with committees, which clearly falls under Management Role. It contains multiple specific facts including a timeframe and named third-party firms, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CIO and senior leaders' responsibilities for cybersecurity oversight and response, with specific mentions of the ERM Committee and a response plan that are unique to this company's disclosure structure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the board as the grammatical subject, making it Board Governance. It contains no specific facts unique to Motorsport Games Inc., making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on third-party security oversight requirements and processes, with no company-specific details or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity incident identification and response without mentioning any specific details that would identify this particular company's approach.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Board and Audit Committee as the primary subjects throughout.


content_category: Incident Disclosure

reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred in October 2023 involving unauthorized access to user information from 23andMe.com accounts, along with response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal organizational structure and processes for managing cybersecurity risk, including specific roles, reporting lines, and programs unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments of cybersecurity threats and standard incident response practices, with no unique company-specific details or actual incident description.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity, with the Board as the grammatical subject. It names the NIST framework as the basis for their cybersecurity policies.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity incident detection and response process based on the NIST CSF framework, which falls under Risk Management Process. It names a recognized standard but contains no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes OFS's internal cybersecurity risk management processes and frameworks, focusing on the company's own policies and procedures rather than board governance, specific management roles, or incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity training programs as part of its risk management process, with no specific details, dates, or named entities that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the CISO as the grammatical subject and discusses their qualifications, experience, and responsibilities, clearly fitting the Management Role category. It contains specific facts about the CISO's role and background that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the management role (specifically the CISO and Information Security team) in assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, with detailed information about qualifications, certifications, and reporting lines that are unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with no company-specific details or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessment of cybersecurity risks to business operations and financial condition, with a specific reference to fiscal 2025 that makes it firm-specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including framework adoption and security controls, which falls under Risk Management Process. It names specific standards (NIST, GDPR, ISO 27001) but contains no unique company-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Enterprise Risk Management Committee's role in overseeing risk management, including receiving cybersecurity reports from the CISO, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains the specific fact of the CISO role, making it 'Firm-Specific' rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management program and the frameworks used to design and assess it, which falls under Risk Management Process. It names the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, making it Sector-Adapted rather than Generic Boilerplate, but contains no unique details specific to ENERPAC TOOL GROUP CORP.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management process through the Information Security Council and its leadership, with specific details about the CISO's qualifications and experience.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risks, including their integration with the ERM program, rather than focusing specifically on board governance or management roles.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and potential business impact of cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident or containing company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks without providing any specific details about implementation, standards, or unique aspects of their program.


reasoning: This paragraph contains generic risk language about cybersecurity threats and limitations of preventative measures that could apply to any company, with no substantive disclosure about the company's specific cybersecurity posture, governance, or incidents.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily discusses materiality assessments of cybersecurity incidents rather than providing incident details, with only the specific date of a past incident making it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Longbridge's internal processes for assessing and managing cybersecurity risk without any specific details that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk management processes including employee training and third-party risk management, but contains no unique identifiers or verifiable facts specific to Aptar.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the Chief Information Security Officer's qualifications, experience, certifications, and reporting structure, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains multiple specific facts including named certifications, educational institution, and the CEO's specific government role, warranting a 'Firm-Specific' rating.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity assessment and training without any specific details that would identify it as unique to CubeSmart.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the CSO as the primary reporting executive, which clearly falls under Board Governance.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with verifiable details including the exact date of discovery and the affected product.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity risks, including identification, assessment, and treatment procedures, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or hard verifiable details that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details about detection, response actions, and impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. However, it lacks sufficient specific facts beyond the date to be classified as anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident including the determination date, unauthorized access by a third party, response actions taken, and ongoing investigation, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date (March 10, 2024) making it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident that occurred on March 10, 2024, including unauthorized access by a third party, response actions, and remediation status, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The inclusion of a specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific dates, unauthorized access details, affected data types, and response actions, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. The inclusion of two specific dates provides hard verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 6, 2024, including detection, response actions, and operational impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the VP of IT/Information Security Officer's role, responsibilities, reporting lines, and team composition, with management roles as the grammatical subject throughout.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific details about timing, threat actor, affected systems, and ongoing impact, meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts including a specific timeframe, named threat actor type, and specific affected groups/systems, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with verifiable details including exact dates, timeframes, and affected parties, making it both an incident disclosure and quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident involving a former employee obtaining customer data, including the scope of affected accounts (33 million) and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope of data affected by a cybersecurity incident without providing any specific facts unique to AT&T or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, including the scope of impact on systems and functions, response actions taken, and the status of operations, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The language is generic with no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident with precise dates and details about the attack and response actions.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including unauthorized access, data exfiltration, extortion demands, and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains one specific fact (reference to first quarter of fiscal 2026) making it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including response actions, scope, and affected data types, but lacks specific dates, named entities, or quantifiable details that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph consists entirely of forward-looking statements and disclaimers with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure about actual incidents, processes, governance, or management.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including unauthorized access, operational impacts, and data exfiltration, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. However, it uses generic language without specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving data exfiltration and the company's response actions, but contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and financial impact of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific details about what happened, when it occurred, and the response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access by a former executive officer, but contains no specific dates, named entities, or verifiable facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details about detection date, unauthorized access, encryption of systems, data theft, and operational impacts, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific dates, threat actors, affected systems, and scope, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains two specific dates that could be independently verified, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific dates of detection and containment, meeting the threshold for Incident Disclosure category and containing two verifiable facts for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact of an incident without describing the event itself, focusing on cost estimates and ongoing assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, its impact on operations, and financial consequences, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains specific dates and a dollar amount that can be independently verified, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident affecting a subsidiary of B. Riley Financial, including the date of discovery, unauthorized access to file systems, and response actions.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the scope and impacts of a cybersecurity incident, including operational disruptions and restoration efforts, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It's Firm-Specific because it references the company's 'Original Report' and 'Amendment' which are unique to this disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific dates of detection and resolution, making it both Incident Disclosure and Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and insurance coverage related to a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic materiality language with no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on financial impact assessment and insurance recoveries related to a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a ransomware incident with specific dates and response actions, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. The two specific dates provide two hard verifiable facts, meeting the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact of a cybersecurity incident, including delayed revenue recognition and one-time expenses, without describing the incident itself.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact and materiality assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational impact and remediation of a cybersecurity incident, including specific timeframes and affected locations.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving CDK Global on June 19, 2024, including the impact on the company's systems and operational disruptions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impact, insurance, and materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which clearly falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident detected on February 6, 2024, including detection, response actions, and business impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial arrangements and liquidity measures related to a cybersecurity incident's remediation without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains multiple verifiable facts including specific dates, dollar amounts, and named entities, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details about detection date, unauthorized access to IT systems, response actions, and business impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with specific details about when it occurred, what happened, the response actions, and the impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The specific date 'October 15, 2025' makes it firm-specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including unauthorized access, data exfiltration, and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific dates, named entities, or unique details that would make it more than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 6, 2024, including detection, response actions, and impact on systems, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident affecting the company's systems, including specific dates, the third-party involved (CDK), and the specific systems impacted (DMS, CRM), meeting the criteria for Incident Disclosure with Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access, response actions, and operational impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. However, it uses generic language without specific dates, named entities, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including detection date, unauthorized access, and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains two specific dates that can be independently verified, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation of a cybersecurity incident, including the lack of evidence of data access and reporting to authorities, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains only generic language without any specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management process, review cadence, and participants, with the CISO and CIO mentioned as specific participants.


reasoning: This paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident that occurred on March 14, 2024, including detection, response actions, and impact on operations, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific date, making it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Chief Technology Officer's responsibilities and reporting lines for cybersecurity risk management, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains specific facts about the CTO's experience level and role that are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident affecting Change Healthcare services, including the scope of affected services and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It lacks specific dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or other verifiable facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate specificity.


reasoning: This is a cross-reference to risk factors with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, falling under None/Other.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses board and audit committee oversight of cybersecurity risk management, with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments of cybersecurity risks without describing any specific incident or internal processes, and contains only generic risk language with no firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's history with cybersecurity incidents and approach to investigations, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no firm-specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program structure and risk management processes, with specific organizational details that identify it as unique to HPE.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Mr. Gharib's cybersecurity-related responsibilities, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains the specific fact of naming Mr. Gharib, which elevates it from Generic Boilerplate to Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks and compliance, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details unique to TMC, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CIO, Information Security Director, and Cybersecurity Team) as the grammatical subjects, describing their responsibilities and qualifications, which aligns with the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cybersecurity risk management, with the board as the grammatical subject, and references industry standards without company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors and its Enterprise Risk Management Committee's oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity, making 'Board Governance' the appropriate category. It contains the specific fact of the named 'Enterprise Risk Management Committee,' which elevates it from Generic Boilerplate to Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CFO's responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It names a specific committee (Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee), which provides firm-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Audit Committee's role in overseeing cybersecurity risks, with the committee as the grammatical subject, making it Board Governance. It contains only generic governance elements without any specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the Adviser's internal processes for identifying, classifying, and escalating cybersecurity incidents, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains the specific reference 'The Adviser' which is unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity incident response and escalation processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments and business impact of cybersecurity threats without describing any specific incidents, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would identify it as unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, with the enterprise risk management team working with the CSO and IT risk management team.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment and mitigation processes without any specific details, standards, or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program integration with various risk management systems, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or standards that would make it more specific than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on describing the CISO and CTO roles and their qualifications, with multiple specific dates, years of experience, and named certifications that can be independently verified.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and cyber insurance costs without describing any actual incident, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Repay Holdings Corp.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks, including employee training, testing, and penetration testing, which clearly falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would identify this company uniquely, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph focuses on materiality assessments and business impact rather than describing an incident, internal processes, or governance structures. The specific year '2023' makes it Firm-Specific despite the otherwise generic risk management language.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the Board of Directors establishing a Cybersecurity Committee and the qualifications of its chair, which falls under board governance oversight of cybersecurity risks.


reasoning: This paragraph is a forward-looking disclaimer with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure, merely stating the absence of material incidents and cross-referencing another section.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk management processes, including how they engage third parties as part of these processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including committee meetings, employee training, and security policies, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains two hard verifiable facts (specific committee name and specific number of policies).


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity, with the board and audit committee as the grammatical subjects. It contains specific cybersecurity leadership roles that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the Board of Directors assigning cybersecurity oversight responsibilities to the Audit Committee, which is a clear example of board governance. It contains no specific facts that would identify anything unique to ENANTA PHARMACEUTICALS.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies Jack Wang as having primary responsibility for managing cybersecurity risks and describes his qualifications and reporting lines, which clearly falls under the Management Role category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response processes for cybersecurity incidents, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which falls under the Risk Management Process category. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no specific facts, dates, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on two management roles (VP of Information Systems and CFO) and their qualifications/experience related to cybersecurity, making 'Management Role' the clear category. It contains multiple specific facts including a cybersecurity-specific title, specific durations, and named certifications that identify unique aspects of this company's disclosure.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to a risk factors section and contains no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the company's use of third parties for security testing and program reviews, which is the central topic of Third-Party Risk. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or standards that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight responsibilities and reporting lines, with the board as the grammatical subject. The mention of the 'Vice President of Operations' provides a firm-specific detail that elevates the specificity from generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes without mentioning any specific incidents, roles, dates, or unique identifiers that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the IT department's responsibilities, qualifications, and reporting structure, with the IT department as the grammatical subject throughout. The specific quantification of '70 years of combined work experience' makes it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment process, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to KORE Group, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the CISO and CTO management roles, their reporting structure, and cybersecurity responsibilities, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains specific cybersecurity titles and reporting relationships that identify unique aspects of this company's governance structure.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments of cybersecurity risks and their potential business/financial impact, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains a specific fiscal year date that makes it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and financial impact of potential cybersecurity incidents without describing any specific company details or actual events.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on third-party cybersecurity engagements without any specific details that would make it unique to Aramark.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on third-party risk management processes without any specific details, standards, or quantifiable information.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses business/financial impact and materiality of cybersecurity threats without describing an actual incident, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains no specific facts unique to Netcapital Inc., making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with the Board of Directors and Audit Committee as the grammatical subjects. It contains only generic governance language without any firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Board's oversight role and delegation to the Audit Committee for cybersecurity matters, with no specific details unique to ESAB Corp.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and audit committee oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity risk, with the audit committee as the primary subject of governance activities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes and tools, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or frameworks that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing third-party cybersecurity risks, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique identifiers, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for cybersecurity risk management, which falls under the Risk Management Process category. It contains named internal programs that make it firm-specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Director of Cybersecurity role, their qualifications, and reporting structure, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general cybersecurity risk management framework without any specific details unique to IONIS Pharmaceuticals.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, with board oversight mentioned as context rather than the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's implementation of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and internal policies to align with regulatory requirements, which falls under Risk Management Process. It names a specific standard (NIST) but contains no firm-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response process without any specific facts, dates, named standards, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal risk management processes for cybersecurity, including insurance coverage and business continuity planning, with no board/committee as subject and no actual incident described. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details that would elevate it above generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's vulnerability assessment program and cybersecurity risk management processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on third-party service provider oversight as its central topic, but contains only generic statements without any specific details, standards, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Western Digital's internal Security Operations Center and incident response processes, which are specific to the company's implementation of risk management.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity measures and processes, focusing on their own framework for managing cyber risks rather than board governance, management roles, third-party relationships, or incident details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 1, 2024, including unauthorized access and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including detection, response actions, and a specific isolation date, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. The specific date of December 20, 2023 provides a firm-specific fact that elevates the specificity level.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a specific cybersecurity incident that occurred on November 25, 2024, including unauthorized access and data encryption by a threat actor, along with the company's response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions and confirms the limited impact of a cybersecurity incident, which fits the Incident Disclosure category. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or quantifiable data that would make it more specific than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident detected on a specific date, including response actions and containment status, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access and data exfiltration, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or verifiable details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes findings from an investigation into a cybersecurity incident, specifically stating no evidence of malware or data alteration and ongoing investigation into potential additional access, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique details that would make it anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessment of an incident without describing the actual incident details, which aligns with Strategy Integration category. It contains one specific fact (the filing date) making it Firm-Specific but not Quantified-Verifiable as it lacks additional verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses exclusively on the material impact and financial consequences of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains specific time references that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the operational and financial impact of a cybersecurity incident, including specific restoration status as of February 12, 2025, and quantifies the revenue impact at five percent of total operating revenue.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of an incident on business operations and financial condition without providing any details about the incident itself, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It contains no unique facts about the company's cybersecurity program beyond standard filing references.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact of an incident on earnings without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains multiple quantifiable facts that could be independently verified.


reasoning: This paragraph contains only forward-looking disclaimers with no substantive cybersecurity content.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with specific details about when it occurred, what happened, and the company's response actions.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including dates, affected systems (SharePoint), and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains multiple specific facts (dates and named product) that meet the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including unauthorized activity on IT systems and the company's response actions, with a specific date of system isolation.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, its operational impact, and response actions, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impacts, insurance, and notification obligations related to an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or other verifiable facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessment and operational impact without describing the incident details, placing it in Strategy Integration. It contains only generic materiality language with no unique firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impact, materiality assessment, and general risks related to an incident without describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no firm-specific cybersecurity details beyond the generic filing date.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no specific facts.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the scope of additional data exfiltration in a cybersecurity incident, including the types of data affected (PII and PHI), which falls under Incident Disclosure. It lacks specific facts like dates, named entities, or quantifiable details to be anything beyond Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving stolen consumer data, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. While it contains one specific number (35.5 million consumers), it lacks additional specific facts to meet higher specificity thresholds.


reasoning: This paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific dates and response actions, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. The inclusion of two specific dates and a named government entity provides verifiable facts that meet the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the scope of data affected by a cybersecurity incident (IT and financial information related to a Form 10-K filing), which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains specific facts about the company's fiscal year and expected filing date, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the financial impact of a cybersecurity incident (expenses and lost revenue) without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains multiple hard verifiable facts (dollar amounts and fiscal year references) that meet the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident including investigation, law enforcement notification, and user notification, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Dropbox's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access, misdirected payment, and deleted emails, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. While it includes a specific dollar amount, it lacks additional firm-specific details to elevate beyond Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident involving network interruption to Change Healthcare systems, along with response actions and scope assessment.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real ransomware incident that occurred on August 16, 2025, including response actions and future plans, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessments and business impact of an incident rather than describing the incident itself, and contains specific facts (filing date and named product) that make it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on financial impact and materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which matches the Strategy Integration category. It contains only generic materiality language with no firm-specific details.


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


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific dates of discovery, access period, and affected data periods, meeting the threshold for Incident Disclosure category and Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with a specific discovery date, which qualifies for Incident Disclosure category and provides at least one firm-specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an ongoing investigation into a cybersecurity incident involving exfiltrated files, which clearly falls under the Incident Disclosure category. However, it contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities that would make it anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impact and materiality of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains two hard verifiable facts ($600,000 expense and June 29, 2024 date) that meet the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the financial impact and materiality assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, placing it in Strategy Integration. It contains specific dates but lacks additional hard facts to reach Quantified-Verifiable level.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific details about when it occurred, unauthorized access, response actions, and operational impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident that occurred on July 10, 2024, including detection, response actions, and containment efforts.


reasoning: This paragraph consists entirely of forward-looking disclaimer language with no substantive cybersecurity content.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses only the materiality assessment and potential financial impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which clearly falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident including the date, what occurred, response actions, and current status of containment.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. While it includes a specific date, it lacks additional specific facts to qualify for higher specificity levels.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to user data, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains a specific fact (8.4 million affected users) that makes it Firm-Specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident including the date of detection, what happened (data exfiltration), and response actions taken, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on materiality assessment and financial impact without describing the incident itself, which aligns with the Strategy Integration category. It contains only generic materiality language with no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


category_confidence: medium

reasoning: The paragraph discusses business continuity and operational aspects related to a cybersecurity incident without providing incident details, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains the firm-specific fact of the 'Halliburton Management System.'


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident including when it was detected, what happened, and initial response actions, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. The specific date of detection makes this Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses the materiality assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate materiality language with no specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response actions and support activities following the Change Healthcare cyberattack, focusing on ongoing response efforts rather than incident details, which falls under Strategy Integration. The specificity is Firm-Specific due to the inclusion of a specific date (April 22, 2020).


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident including containment, investigation, and notification, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique details that would make it more than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes remediation activities and system status following a cybersecurity incident, including removal of a third party, restoration of access, and verification of data integrity, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. However, it contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique details that would make it specific to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident (file exfiltration) and the company's response actions (investigating scope, evaluating notifications), which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's response actions to contain a cybersecurity threat and enhance security, focusing on internal processes rather than incident details or business impact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a ransomware incident with specific dates, location, and impact details, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. It contains two specific dates that are hard verifiable facts, meeting the threshold for Quantified-Verifiable specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident including activating a response plan, launching an investigation, taking systems offline, and notifying law enforcement, but contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the scope and impact of a cybersecurity incident, specifically what data was and was not compromised, which falls under Incident Disclosure. However, it contains no firm-specific facts or verifiable data points, making it Generic Boilerplate in terms of specificity.


reasoning: This is a standard legal disclaimer with no substantive cybersecurity content, fitting the None/Other category.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight responsibilities with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on materiality assessment of a previously disclosed incident rather than describing the incident itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration.


reasoning: This is a forward-looking disclaimer and cross-reference with no substantive cybersecurity disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board oversight of cybersecurity risk management, with the board and audit committee as the grammatical subjects. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique identifiers beyond generic governance terms.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes integrated with ERM, but contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal remediation processes and security strengthening efforts after an incident, without providing specific details about the incident itself or any verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses the materiality impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the materiality assessment and financial impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains the specific subsidiary name 'Targus' which makes it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity policies and committee evaluation, with the Cybersecurity Committee being a named non-generic committee that makes this disclosure firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses vendor evaluation as part of the company's broader cybersecurity risk management process, not as a standalone third-party risk program. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Kalaris Therapeutics.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board committee oversight of cybersecurity risks and incidents, with the Committee as the grammatical subject, making it Board Governance. It contains only generic governance language with no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cyber risk management program and its integration with enterprise risk management, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details, named entities, or frameworks that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the cybersecurity officer as the grammatical subject, making it Management Role. It contains two hard verifiable facts (28 years of experience and joining year 2020) that meet the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's dependence on technology systems as part of risk management, with third parties mentioned as one component rather than being the central topic. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity program as part of enterprise risk management, with no specific details that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal processes for cybersecurity and resiliency, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or quantifiable information, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity program objectives, which falls under Risk Management Process, but contains only generic language without any company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph is a generic biographical statement about an individual's professional experience with no cybersecurity-specific content or firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph assigns responsibility for cybersecurity risk assessment to management roles (ITS Department head and executive management), which is the grammatical subject. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique identifiers that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and audit committee oversight activities, with the board/committee as the grammatical subject, making it Board Governance. It contains no specific facts unique to Boundless Bio, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response and recovery frameworks, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains only generic information about testing cadence and methods, with no specific facts or named standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors oversight activities, making 'Board Governance' the appropriate category. The mention of CISO and CIO roles provides firm-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal policies and training requirements for protecting personally identifiable information, which falls under risk management processes.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses CrowdStrike's approach to cybersecurity risk management as part of their enterprise risk management program, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details that would make it anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion about cybersecurity incidents with no incident narrative, which falls under Strategy Integration. The language is generic materiality boilerplate with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management approach, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


category_confidence: low

reasoning: The board is the grammatical subject discussing risk oversight, but the content is extremely generic with no specific details about cybersecurity.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CIO and Director of IT Security) and their qualifications, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains cybersecurity-specific titles and a specific number of years of experience, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities the company faces, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts unique to Beyond Air, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a generic step in the incident response process (eradication phase) as part of the company's cybersecurity risk management framework, with no company-specific details or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the qualifications of the company's IT team, which falls under Management Role, but contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses entirely on vendor oversight processes, making 'Third-Party Risk' the appropriate category. It names 'Security Scorecard' as a specific tool used for monitoring, which provides firm-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management roles (CSO and CISO) as the grammatical subjects discussing their activities and reporting lines. It's firm-specific due to named cybersecurity roles and a specific committee.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on cybersecurity protections incorporated by third-party email and cloud storage providers, making vendor security the central topic rather than internal processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes board oversight of cybersecurity through regular updates, making it Board Governance. It contains no specific facts or named standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the internal cybersecurity coordinator's role and reporting structure, which falls under the Management Role category. It contains specific facts about the cybersecurity coordinator role and reporting to the CEO, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Invesco's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, specifically their approach to threat intelligence, industry engagement, and external expert testing. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Invesco, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes, with the specific fact that the CFO serves as the CISO.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (CIO and VP of Information Security) responsible for cybersecurity risk management, which falls under the Management Role category. The cybersecurity-specific titles make this disclosure firm-specific rather than generic.


reasoning: This is a non-substantive disclosure statement about the absence of incidents, which falls under None/Other category. As a None/Other paragraph, it's automatically classified as Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessments and financial impact of cybersecurity incidents without describing any specific incident, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Silicon Laboratories.


reasoning: The paragraph describes generic cybersecurity training activities (phishing simulations and incident training) without any company-specific details, dates, or named entities.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion with no incident reference, which falls under Strategy Integration. The specific dates make it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal incident response plan review process, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains only generic language about continuous improvement with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cyber insurance coverage as a financial risk mitigation strategy, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no firm-specific details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes management's role in monitoring cybersecurity incidents, with management as the grammatical subject. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal approach to cybersecurity risk management without any specific details, dates, or named entities.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks and incident reporting, making 'Board Governance' the appropriate category. It contains only generic governance language without any specific facts, dates, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph assigns cybersecurity responsibilities to C-suite executives (CFO, COO, CEO), making management roles the grammatical subject and focus. It contains no company-specific details, recognized frameworks, or quantifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, frameworks, or details unique to this company, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors oversight of cybersecurity, making it Board Governance. It contains no specific facts or named standards, only generic governance language.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the functions performed by cybersecurity professionals, which falls under Management Role. It contains no specific facts unique to Electromed, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This is a forward-looking statement about cybersecurity objectives without any substantive disclosure about governance, management, processes, incidents, or strategy.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Thermon's internal cybersecurity risk management framework as a generic process for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks without any specific details unique to the company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes for both employees and third parties, with no specific details unique to Corning.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management strategies without any specific details that would identify it uniquely from other companies.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity initiative (CyberSmart Defender Network) and its composition, which is a Risk Management Process. It contains specific facts including the named program and team composition that make it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an internal training process for cybersecurity threats, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, dates, numbers, or named entities that would make it firm-specific or sector-adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal process for identifying, assessing, and managing cybersecurity risks, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains the named program 'BDTP TM' which makes it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses management's role in cybersecurity and potential changes to that structure, with no specific facts that would make it unique to T3 Defense Inc.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response planning and testing process, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to Gilead Sciences.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program and processes, which falls under Risk Management Process, but contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses materiality assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, standards, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses ongoing investigation activities without describing the actual incident, falling under None/Other. It contains no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity programs and processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named standards, or verifiable details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains the cybersecurity-specific title 'Senior Director of IT' making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses insurance reimbursement for a cyber incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses management roles (CTO and senior director of cybersecurity and compliance) and their reporting lines to the Audit Committee, which falls under the Management Role category. It contains a cybersecurity-specific title making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion stating no material cybersecurity threats were identified in 2024, with no incident reference or specific details.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion about a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. The language is generic boilerplate with no specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on the potential material financial impact of an incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impacts and materiality of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident (retaining experts, working with law enforcement, notifying authorities) but lacks specific details about the incident itself or verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity insurance coverage as a financial protection strategy, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique details, making it generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion discussing the impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate language about material impact with no specific facts.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standalone materiality conclusion about a cybersecurity incident's financial impact, with no specific details about the incident itself or any verifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access and data exfiltration), the scope (limited data including PII), and response actions (notifications), which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts like dates, dollar amounts, named entities, or unique details that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: This paragraph is a generic procedural statement about notifying authorities following an incident, with no incident narrative or company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which matches the Strategy Integration category. It contains only generic boilerplate materiality language with no specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses business/financial impacts and insurance implications of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which matches the Strategy Integration category. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph references a cybersecurity incident and its operational impact on networks and transactional services, directing readers to a specific status page for more information.


reasoning: This paragraph is a standard legal disclaimer about contractual obligations and contains no cybersecurity content.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic boilerplate language with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on the impact assessment and materiality considerations of an incident without describing the event itself, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains only generic language with no company-specific details.


reasoning: This paragraph only describes procedural notification actions without providing any substantive details about the incident itself, making it 'None/Other' rather than 'Incident Disclosure.' It contains no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses response measures and customer notifications related to an incident but provides no incident details or specific facts about the response.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial impact and insurance recoveries related to a cybersecurity incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with specific dates of notification and confirmation of customer information exposure, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. The two specific dates provide quantifiable, verifiable facts.


reasoning: This paragraph discusses a leadership change at a subsidiary with no cybersecurity content, making it None/Other. Per guidelines, None/Other paragraphs always receive Generic Boilerplate specificity rating.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality and financial impact of an incident without describing the actual event, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would elevate it above Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This is a standalone materiality conclusion about an incident's financial impact without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. The statement contains no unique facts about the company's cybersecurity program or incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the containment and restoration status following a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Incident Disclosure category. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on cyber insurance and ongoing investigation rather than describing the incident itself, placing it in Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: This paragraph describes general operational disruptions affecting online ordering without any cybersecurity content, making it 'None/Other' with 'Generic Boilerplate' specificity.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving exfiltrated personal information and the company's ongoing investigation and planned notifications, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts that would make it Firm-Specific or higher.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's ongoing investigation process related to a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Risk Management Process rather than Incident Disclosure since it doesn't describe the actual incident events.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the event itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic materiality language with no company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions to a cybersecurity incident (containing, restoring systems, resuming operations) but contains no specific details about the incident itself or unique company information.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a response action (mailing notification letters) to a cybersecurity incident, which falls under Incident Disclosure category. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access, data exfiltration, and encryption, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, dates, or named entities that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains only generic materiality language with no specific facts.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses solely on materiality assessment without describing the incident details, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of an incident's financial impact without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident (unauthorized third-party access) with a specific date, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure category and provides a firm-specific fact.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident, including system restoration, operational impacts, and investigation results, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts, dates, names, or standards that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes an actual cybersecurity incident with a specific date and response actions, qualifying it as Incident Disclosure. The inclusion of the specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph describes the impact of an ongoing incident on the company's website and provides a specific URL for incident communications, which qualifies as Incident Disclosure with Firm-Specific detail due to the unique URL provided.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the cause of a cybersecurity incident (compromised fourth-party vendor), which falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts that would identify this company's unique disclosure, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational impact of a cybersecurity incident on business functions, which falls under Incident Disclosure. It contains only generic incident response language without any specific facts that would identify this company uniquely.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses financial and operational impacts of a cyber incident without describing the incident itself, fitting the Strategy Integration category. It contains no specific facts that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to systems containing sensitive personal information and the company's notification response, but contains no specific dates, named entities, or unique details.


reasoning: The paragraph only discusses materiality assessment and potential financial impact of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts that would make it anything other than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the operational impact and scope of a cybersecurity incident, specifically mentioning affected systems and duration of impact, which clearly falls under Incident Disclosure. However, it contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantified-verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes response actions (notifying authorities, working with law enforcement) related to a cybersecurity incident (unauthorized access), which qualifies as Incident Disclosure. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses materiality assessment of an incident without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, dates, or unique identifiers, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the material impact of a cybersecurity incident on financial results without describing the incident itself, which falls under Strategy Integration. It contains no unique facts specific to First American Financial Corp's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident (systems outage caused by an attack) that occurred on a specific date, including the nature of the incident and response actions taken.


reasoning: The paragraph describes temporary operational measures during system restoration but doesn't provide substantive incident details or fall into other defined cybersecurity categories.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a real cybersecurity incident with a specific date and nature of attack, clearly falling under Incident Disclosure. The specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: This paragraph is a cross-reference to a press release and exhibit, not substantive disclosure about cybersecurity itself.


reasoning: The paragraph describes a cybersecurity incident with a specific date, which meets the threshold for Incident Disclosure. The specific date makes it Firm-Specific rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Wendy's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including CIS Controls adoption, risk assessments, infrastructure design, dedicated personnel, and training programs. It contains firm-specific elements such as the Technology Committee of their Board of Directors and their ERM program.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for evaluating, responding to, and recovering from cybersecurity incidents, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains specific facts like the Chief Security Officer role and named internal programs that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, which falls under the Risk Management Process category. It only mentions named industry standards without any firm-specific details, making it Sector-Adapted.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on management's role in cybersecurity risk management, with the Risk Management Team as the primary subject, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's general approach to cybersecurity risk management without mentioning any specific incidents, management roles, board oversight, or quantifiable details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board and Risk Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with specific committee and program names identified.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses cybersecurity risks and their potential business/financial impact, including a materiality assessment, without describing any specific incident.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes and governance structure, with the Global Head of IT Security being a firm-specific detail.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Bel's internal cybersecurity processes, risk assessment framework, and security measures, with third-party risk management as a component rather than the central focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal multi-layered approach to cybersecurity risk management, including security controls, awareness training, third-party oversight, monitoring, business resiliency, and continuous improvement processes.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's technology infrastructure and general cyber risks, which falls under risk management processes, but contains no specific details that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity program structure, policies, and administrative oversight, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it Firm-Specific or Quantified-Verifiable, and no named standards, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Zymeworks' internal cybersecurity risk management processes across multiple areas, with no specific facts that make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes as the central topic, focusing on their implementation of the NIST framework and various security measures.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the nature of cybersecurity threats and their potential business impacts, which aligns with Strategy Integration. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes and program, which fits the Risk Management Process category. It contains no specific facts unique to this company and consists of generic statements about cybersecurity risk management that could apply to many financial services companies.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's systematic approach to managing cybersecurity risks, including risk assessment frameworks, policy adoption, and stakeholder responsibilities, with the CISO as the primary risk manager.


reasoning: The paragraph centers on the third-party IT and cybersecurity firm engaged to manage cybersecurity risks, making 'Third-Party Risk' the most appropriate category. It contains specific cybersecurity roles and experience details that distinguish it from generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risk, including assessment, identification, management, and response, with board oversight mentioned as part of those processes.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including monitoring, assessments, policies, and training, without mentioning any specific incidents, board governance, or management roles. It contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique details that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the Chief Information Officer's role, qualifications, experience, certifications, and reporting structure, making 'Management Role' the most appropriate category. It contains at least two hard verifiable facts (25 years of experience and specific named certifications) that meet the Quantified-Verifiable threshold.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and mitigating information security risks, including the use of the NIST Framework and various software programs for protection and monitoring.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal IT systems for detecting cyber attacks and potential impacts, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts, named entities, or unique details, making it Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Board of Directors and Audit Committee oversight of cybersecurity risks, with no company-specific details or quantifiable facts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity processes, tools, and strategies, which falls under Risk Management Process. It mentions 'Zero Trust architecture' as a recognized security framework, making it Sector-Adapted rather than Generic Boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity incidents, including their specific Agility Plan, Crisis Management Team structure, and CIO role, which are unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes without any specific details that would make it unique to Kontoor Brands.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Apollo Global Management's comprehensive approach to cybersecurity risk management, including governance structure, technical safeguards, incident response planning, and third-party risk management. It contains specific facts like CISO roles and departmental involvement that make it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including monitoring, incident response planning, and third-party engagements as part of these processes. It contains one specific fact (the named Cybersecurity Incident Response Program), making it Firm-Specific rather than generic.


reasoning: The paragraph discusses business/financial impact and materiality assessments of cybersecurity risks without describing specific incidents or internal processes, placing it in the Strategy Integration category. It contains a specific date reference that makes it Firm-Specific rather than generic boilerplate.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes Schwab's internal risk management and information security processes, with the Board oversight mentioned as part of this structure rather than being the main focus.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Guardant Health's internal cybersecurity processes and controls without providing any specific details unique to the company.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on the roles and qualifications of the CISO and CCO management positions responsible for cybersecurity, with multiple verifiable facts including specific years of experience, named educational institutions, and certifications.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk assessment and management processes for cybersecurity threats without providing any specific details, named entities, or verifiable facts that would make it unique to CoreCivic.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Cohen & Steers' internal cybersecurity controls and risk management processes without any specific details that would make it unique to this company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Chewy's internal incident response process (IRP) and the types of cybersecurity incidents they face, which falls under Risk Management Process rather than Incident Disclosure since no specific incident with details is described.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Northern Trust's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including specific committees and policies unique to the company.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal risk management processes, including monitoring frameworks, vendor oversight, and committee oversight, with the Information Security Risk Committee being a firm-specific element.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific management roles (chief digital officer, chief information officer, chief information security officer) and their qualifications, experience, and responsibilities, which falls under the Management Role category. It contains multiple verifiable specific facts including named individuals, specific years of experience, named committees, and regulatory bodies, making it Quantified-Verifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes USCF's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including risk assessments and third-party due diligence, which falls under Risk Management Process. It contains no specific facts that would make it firm-specific or quantifiable.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks, including leadership structure, governance committee, and incident response planning, with multiple firm-specific details about roles, qualifications, and programs.


reasoning: The paragraph identifies specific cybersecurity management roles (CISO, CIO, Chief Transformation Officer) and details their qualifications, making 'Management Role' the appropriate category. It contains cybersecurity-specific titles and specific years of experience, making it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's cybersecurity risk management approach and oversight processes but contains no specific facts, dates, named entities, or unique details that would make it firm-specific.


reasoning: The paragraph primarily describes the company's internal processes for assessing, identifying, and managing cybersecurity risks, with third-party risk as one component rather than the central focus. It contains the specific fact of a 'Senior Director of Information Technology' role, which is unique to this company's disclosure.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal incident response plan aligned with NIST RMF, detailing the CISO's role with CIO oversight and specific collaborations with the U.S. Department of Defense on CMMC initiatives.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks without any specific details, standards, or unique identifiers.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal processes for managing cybersecurity risks, including an Information Security Program and third-party risk management program, making it Risk Management Process with Firm-Specific detail due to the named internal programs.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes as the main topic, but uses generic language without any company-specific details.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on board and committee oversight responsibilities for cybersecurity risk management, with the board and Audit Committee as the grammatical subjects. It contains the cybersecurity-specific title 'Director of IT' which makes it Firm-Specific.


reasoning: The paragraph describes Southwest Airlines' internal cybersecurity risk management processes, frameworks, and controls, focusing on their program structure, risk assessment approach, and monitoring mechanisms.


reasoning: The paragraph focuses on Luca Fabbri (President and CEO) as the management principal responsible for cybersecurity oversight, detailing his qualifications and experience.


reasoning: The paragraph describes WTW's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including their incident response plan, technical safeguards, training policy, third-party risk management, and threat intelligence efforts.


reasoning: The paragraph describes the company's internal cybersecurity risk management processes, including program structure, incident reporting requirements, and escalation procedures, with specific organizational details that identify it as unique to this company.