Confirmed breach. Intrusion Jun 11, 2025–Jun 12, 2025, discovered Jun 11, 2025 — the first regulatory filing landed 84 days later (flagged late). 343 individuals reported across the linked filings.
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
Regulatory clocksVermont✗ VT AG >45 bdayFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
State AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforcedhigh sensitivity
Affected (total reported)
343
Data types
4
Identity (basic) · Government ID · Financial account
Jurisdictions
2
IN VT
Linked filings
2
all State AG
Sensitive data
identity_government
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Jun 11, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Breach discovered
Jun 11, 2025
Reported by VERMONT AG filing
84 days
🏎️Indiana State AGFirst filinglinked via multistate filing link · 95%
Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture LLC reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-06-11 and was reported on 2025-09-03. 8 Indiana residents were affected. 343 individuals affected in total.
Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture LLC disclosed a data breach where an unauthorized actor accessed its server between June 11-12, 2025. The incident potentially exposed names combined with SSNs, driver's licenses, state IDs, passports, financial information, and medical information. The firm is offering 12 months of credit monitoring services to affected individuals.
VT AG >45 bday
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.