How is sensitive data protected?

All documents are encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest and TLS 1.2+ in transit. A GDPR anonymization layer removes PII before any AI processing. Hosted on Vercel + Supabase (both SOC 2 Type II); Decision Intel’s own product-level audit is targeted for Q4 2026.

How long does integration take?

Less than 30 minutes. Upload documents directly, connect via OAuth for Slack, or use our REST API for bulk processing.

How does outcome tracking work?

Outcomes are detected automatically from follow-up documents, Slack messages, and web intelligence. You confirm with one click. Each reported outcome makes your future analyses more accurate.

How is Decision Intel different from ChatGPT or a general AI assistant?

ChatGPT gives one opinion from one model: ungoverned, untraceable, unaudited. Decision Intel is the reasoning audit platform. Most tools audit your data; we audit your reasoning — and catch the fatal blind spots in strategic memos before the committee does. It measures the noise in your reasoning the same way Kahneman did in the insurance underwriter study, simulates an AI boardroom of CEO, CFO, and board personas, runs what-if interventions against a 143-case public reference library, and compounds every confirmed outcome back into a calibrated Decision Quality Index your audit committee can defend. Not a chatbot; a reasoning audit, checkable from memo to outcome.

Which cognitive biases caused Amazon's exceptional outcome?

3 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Overconfidence Bias. The full set: Overconfidence Bias, Anchoring Bias, Confirmation Bias. Each is mapped to Decision Intel's 22-bias R²F taxonomy with stable IDs and academic citations.

What is Decision Intel's reasoning audit?

Decision Intel runs a 12-node Recognition-Rigor Framework (R²F) pipeline on strategic memos, detecting cognitive biases from a 22-bias canonical taxonomy and producing a Decision Quality Index (DQI) score. The audit produces a hashed, tamper-evident Decision Provenance Record (DPR) suitable for audit-committee review.

All case studies

Exceptional successTechnology2003

Amazon

Amazon AWS: The Accidental $80B Business

Estimated impact: $80B+ annual revenue; created $1.5T cloud computing market

A90

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Excellent · 3 biases detected

Amazon Web Services began as an internal infrastructure project in 2003, launched publicly in 2006, and grew into a $80+ billion annual revenue business by 2022. Jeff Bezos bet that Amazon's internal computing infrastructure could be productized for external developers. Wall Street analysts dismissed the project as a distraction from e-commerce. Andy Jassy led the effort with a small team, operating with minimal resources for years before reaching profitability.

Decision context

Whether to invest in building and selling cloud infrastructure as a service — a market that did not yet exist — while the core e-commerce business was still proving its own profitability to skeptical investors.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

High

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

None

Unanimous consensus

Decision participants

Dissent encouraged

Yes

External advisors

Iterative process

Yes

Red = risk factor present · Green = protective factor present

Deep hindsight-stripped analysis coming soon. This case is part of our ongoing backfill to reconstruct what the platform would have flagged at decision time. The summary and bias profile below are drawn from primary sources.

Biases present in the decision

★Overconfidence Bias

critical

Anchoring Bias

high

Confirmation Bias

high

★ Primary driver · Severity estimated from bias type and decision outcome

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Amazon · 3 biases

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 3 detected biases

Reference class base rates

Across all 143 curated case studies in our library:

89%

base failure rate

-0%

partial / mixed

11%

base success rate

■ Failure■ Partial■ Success

Lessons learned

Overconfidence bias was present (Bezos believed Amazon could serve external developers better than anyone) but was mitigated by iterative development and customer feedback loops.
Anchoring bias was managed by NOT anchoring to competitor pricing or existing market definitions — AWS created a new category.
Survivorship risk is medium: the bet could have easily failed if the internal infrastructure wasn't genuinely world-class or if enterprise adoption had been slower.

Source: Brad Stone, "The Everything Store" (2013); Amazon 10-K filings (2006-2015); AWS re:Invent keynotes (2012-2015) (Annual Report)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Amazon's own record — before the outcome.

See the full bias auditwe ran — no login, no card. Then run the same 60-second audit on your own next memo.

See a live audit · no login Audit your own memo

Or leave your email, we'll run a strategic memo of your choosing and send the readout within a business day.

Audit your own decision

Workflows that fire on decisions like Amazon’s

The same Recognition-Rigor Framework that documents this case audits memos in the same shape — before the outcome forces the lesson.

For CSOs and Heads of Strategic Planning

Strategic memo audit

Audit a strategic memo for cognitive bias and forecast errors in 60 seconds — before the board sees it.

Audit a strategic memo

For any high-stakes decision, before commitment

Decision pre-mortem

Run a structured pre-mortem before the decision is final — surface failure modes the room cannot see from the inside.

Run a pre-mortem

For CSOs and CEOs presenting to a board

Board deck pre-presentation audit

Audit a board deck before the presentation — predict the toughest questions the room will ask.

Audit your board deck

See all 6 workflows for the full audit-tool surface.

Related cases in Technology

Catastrophic failure2020

Quibi

Quibi Streaming Platform Failure

Failure2015

IBM

IBM Watson Health Strategic Failure

Failure2021

Zillow

Zillow iBuying Program Shutdown

Catastrophic failure2013

Juicero

Juicero Press Failure

Lessons learned

Overconfidence bias was present (Bezos believed Amazon could serve external developers better than anyone) but was mitigated by iterative development and customer feedback loops.

Anchoring bias was managed by NOT anchoring to competitor pricing or existing market definitions — AWS created a new category.

Survivorship risk is medium: the bet could have easily failed if the internal infrastructure wasn't genuinely world-class or if enterprise adoption had been slower.