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 AOL Time Warner's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Bandwagon Effect. The full set: Overconfidence Bias, Bandwagon Effect, Recency Bias, Planning Fallacy, Framing Effect. 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

Catastrophic failureTechnology2000

AOL Time Warner

AOL-Time Warner Merger

Estimated impact: $99B goodwill write-down

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 4 toxic combinations

The $164B merger of AOL and Time Warner, announced in January 2000, became the largest corporate write-down in history ($99B). AOL's dial-up business was already in decline when the deal closed, and the promised "convergence" synergies never materialized.

Decision context

Whether to merge a new-economy internet company (AOL) valued on subscriber growth with an old-economy media conglomerate (Time Warner) valued on cash flows, during the peak of the dot-com bubble.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Very high

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

Present

Unanimous consensus

Decision participants

Dissent encouraged

External advisors

Iterative process

Red = risk factor present · Green = protective factor present

Decision Intel Platform Analysis

Source: Press Release · January 10, 2000

The analysis below was produced from the pre-decision document only. No hindsight. This is what the platform would have surfaced if it had been running at the time.

Press Release · January 10, 2000

“January 2000 merger announcement press release declaring 'historic merger' to create world's first fully integrated media and communications company”

Source: AOL and Time Warner Corporate Communications

Red flags detectable at decision time

Merger premised on AOL's inflated dot-com valuation
No integration plan for fundamentally different corporate cultures
Dial-up subscriber growth already plateauing
Combined debt exceeding $17B

Cognitive biases the platform would have flagged

Overconfidence BiasFraming EffectRecency Bias

Hypothetical analysis

Decision intelligence would have flagged the extreme valuation asymmetry — AOL's $164B market cap was built on dial-up subscriptions already showing growth deceleration. The press release's emphasis on 'synergies' without concrete integration metrics would have triggered overconfidence and anchoring bias warnings.

Biases present in the decision

Overconfidence Bias

high

★Bandwagon Effect

critical

Recency Bias

medium

Planning Fallacy

medium

Framing Effect

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

AOL Time Warner · 5 biases, 4 toxic combinations

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 5 detected biases

Toxic combinations

!Recency Spiral

Compound cognitive failure pattern identified in this decision.

!Optimism Trap

Overconfidence and availability bias create a systematically positive outlook that ignores base rates.

!Synergy Mirage

Synergy claims without a named operational mechanism, accountable executive, or 90-day milestone — the canonical M&A failure mode (70-90% of acquisitions miss projected synergies).

!Conglomerate Fallacy

Far-adjacency acquisition justified by target growth and brand halo with no answer to "why us as parent" — Porter parenting-advantage absent.

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

Recency bias from dot-com valuations led Time Warner to accept AOL stock at peak bubble prices
Bandwagon effect — "convergence" was the dominant media narrative and questioning it was career-limiting
Culture clashes between merged organizations can destroy more value than any synergy captures

Source: Tim Arango, "How the AOL-Time Warner Merger Went So Wrong," NYT (2010); SEC filings (Case Study)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in AOL Time Warner's own record — before the outcome.

See the full hindsight-stripped 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 AOL Time Warner’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 Heads of Corp Dev and M&A advisors

M&A bias audit

Audit an acquisition thesis for the three named M&A failure patterns: Synergy Mirage, Conglomerate Fallacy, Winner's Curse.

Audit an acquisition thesis

For Heads of Corp Dev and Investment Committee chairs

IC memo pre-vote stress test

Stress-test an investment committee memo before the vote — catch Synergy Mirage, Winner's Curse, and Conglomerate Fallacy.

Audit your IC memo

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

Related cases in Technology

Partial failure2021

Meta Platforms

Meta Platforms Metaverse Pivot and Reality Labs Losses

Catastrophic failure2019

WeWork

WeWork Failed IPO and Valuation Collapse

Catastrophic failure2013

Juicero

Juicero Press Failure

Catastrophic failure2013

Yahoo

Yahoo-Tumblr Acquisition Write-Down

Toxic combinations

!Recency Spiral

Compound cognitive failure pattern identified in this decision.

!Optimism Trap

Overconfidence and availability bias create a systematically positive outlook that ignores base rates.

!Synergy Mirage

Synergy claims without a named operational mechanism, accountable executive, or 90-day milestone — the canonical M&A failure mode (70-90% of acquisitions miss projected synergies).

!Conglomerate Fallacy

Far-adjacency acquisition justified by target growth and brand halo with no answer to "why us as parent" — Porter parenting-advantage absent.