Does disclosing something in general terms protect a seller as much as disclosing it specifically?

No, and this is worth understanding as a general principle of how disclosure functions across the whole agreement, not just in the context of a single dispute. Specific disclosure — naming the actual contract, the actual claim, the actual number — gives the other side genuine, usable notice of exactly what it's agreeing to accept as an exception to a representation. General disclosure, phrased broadly enough to technically cover almost anything, gives far weaker protection because it doesn't actually put the other side on meaningful notice of what's really being carved out.

This matters across the whole document, not just for one clause: a pattern of vague, general disclosures throughout a set of schedules is a warning sign in itself, since it can signal either sloppy preparation or a deliberate attempt to bury something specific inside broad language. Buyers reviewing schedules should treat overly general language as an invitation to ask "what specifically does this refer to?" rather than accepting it at face value, and sellers relying on general language to cover something they know is significant are taking on real, avoidable risk.

If you're drafting or reviewing schedules and see general language doing a lot of work, that's exactly the kind of pattern a Treadstone business lawyer should flag before signing.