Contract analysis

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PURPOSE This Board and Committee Self-Evaluation Framework and Questionnaire (this "Framework") has been prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") at the request of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Belmont Ridge Bank NA ("BRB" or the "Bank"), a nationally chartered commercial bank (OCC Charter No. 24-0738) headquartered at 600 Lexington Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10022.

II. REGULATORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR BOARD SELF-EVALUATION A robust and well-documented board self-evaluation process is not merely a matter of good governance practice — it is an expectation of BRB's primary regulators, a requirement of the Nasdaq listing standards applicable to BRFG, and an increasingly important element of institutional shareholder and proxy advisory firm assessments of governance quality. This

III. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS A. Components of the Annual Evaluation The annual evaluation process established by this Framework comprises four distinct but interrelated components:

1. Full Board Evaluation. An assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Board as a governing body, including its composition, culture, governance practices, strategic oversight, risk oversight, information flow, meeting effectiveness, and relationship with management and regulators. The Full Board Evaluation is described in detail in Section VII of this Framework, and the corresponding questionnaire is set forth

2. Individual Committee Evaluations. Separate evaluations of each of the five standing committees of the Board. Each committee evaluation assesses the committee's fulfillment of its charter responsibilities, the quality of its deliberations, the adequacy of the information it receives, the effectiveness of its chair's leadership, and committee-specific performance criteria tailored to the committee's mandate. The fiv

3. Individual Director Performance Assessment. A peer evaluation and self-assessment process for each of the 13 directors. The Individual Director Performance Assessment evaluates each director's preparedness, attendance, quality of contributions, understanding of the Bank's business and risk profile, independence of judgment, continuing education, and compliance with governance policies. The Individual Director Perf

4. Board Leadership Assessment. An evaluation of the effectiveness of each director holding a board leadership position. The Board Leadership Assessment covers: (a) The Chair of the Board (Margaret R. Ellsworth); (b) The Lead Independent Director (David K. Sorrento); and (c) Each committee chair (Thomas J. Callahan, Audit Committee; Priya Venkataraman, Risk Committee; Sandra M. Okafor, Compensation & Human Capital Co

IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation process established by this Framework employs a multi-faceted methodology designed to elicit comprehensive, candid, and actionable feedback from all participants. The methodology comprises four principal components: written questionnaires, confidential third-party-facilitated interviews, peer assessment, and benchmarking. A. Written Questionnaires Written questionnaires are t

V. ENGAGING AN INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY FACILITATOR A. Role and Qualifications The independent third-party facilitator (the "Facilitator") plays a central role in ensuring the objectivity, credibility, and effectiveness of the board evaluation process. The Facilitator's responsibilities include: (a) Working with the Governance & Nominating Committee and C&H to finalize the evaluation questionnaires and interview proto

VI. CONFIDENTIALITY PROTOCOLS The effectiveness of the self-evaluation process depends critically on the candor and honesty of directors' responses. Directors must be confident that their individual responses — both written and oral — will be treated as strictly confidential. This Section establishes the confidentiality protocols applicable to the evaluation process. A. Treatment of Responses All individual questionn

VII. FULL BOARD EVALUATION — CRITERIA AND QUESTIONNAIRE The Full Board Evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the Board as a whole across eight key categories. The evaluation criteria for each category are described below, and the corresponding questionnaire is set forth in Appendix A. A. Board Composition and Structure The evaluation should assess: • Whether the current board size of 13 directors is appropriate fo

VIII. INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS — CRITERIA AND QUESTIONNAIRES Each of the five standing committees of the Board will conduct a separate annual self-evaluation. This Section describes the evaluation criteria applicable to all committees and the committee-specific criteria applicable to each standing committee. The corresponding questionnaires are set forth in Appendix B. A. Common Evaluation Themes (Applicable

1. Charter Clarity and Adequacy. Whether the committee's charter clearly defines the committee's role, responsibilities, authority, and membership requirements, and whether the charter is adequate to enable the committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

2. Charter Fulfillment. Whether the committee has fulfilled all of the responsibilities set forth in its charter during the evaluation period.

3. Meeting Frequency and Duration. Whether the committee meets with sufficient frequency and for sufficient duration to address the matters within its purview. This assessment should consider both the number of regularly scheduled meetings and any additional special meetings held during the evaluation period.

4. Materials Quality and Timeliness. Whether the materials provided to the committee in advance of meetings are of sufficient quality, detail, and clarity to support the committee's deliberations, and whether materials are distributed with adequate lead time.

5. Management and Advisor Relationships. Whether the committee's relationship with its key management counterparts and outside advisors is effective, productive, and appropriately balanced between cooperation and independent oversight.

6. Board Reporting. Whether the committee provides adequate and timely reports to the full Board regarding its activities, findings, and recommendations.

7. Chair Leadership. Whether the committee chair provides effective leadership, including setting productive agendas, managing meeting discussions, ensuring thorough coverage of all relevant topics, and fostering constructive engagement by all committee members.

8. Self-Identified Improvement Areas. Whether the committee has identified specific areas in which its effectiveness should be improved in the coming evaluation period. B. Audit Committee Evaluation Committee Composition: Chair: Thomas J. Callahan, who has served as an independent director since 2019. Mr. Callahan is a certified public accountant (inactive license) and a former audit partner at Ridgewell & Haines LLP