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 Australian Department of Human Services's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Cognitive Misering. The full set: Cognitive Misering, Framing Effect, Authority Bias, Confirmation Bias, Groupthink. 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 failureGovernment2016

Australian Department of Human Services

Australia Robodebt Scheme

Estimated impact: $1.8B in refunds and compensation; Royal Commission costs; at least 2 suicides linked

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

The Australian government used automated income averaging to raise $1.7B in welfare debt notices against 443,000 people. Many debts were incorrect — the algorithm compared annualized tax data with fortnightly welfare payments, creating false discrepancies. The scheme was ruled illegal.

Decision context

Whether to deploy an automated debt-raising system that used income averaging without manual verification, and whether to reverse the burden of proof by requiring welfare recipients to disprove computer-generated debts.

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

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

★Cognitive Misering

critical

Framing Effect

medium

Authority Bias

high

Confirmation Bias

high

Groupthink

high

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Australian Department of Human Services · 5 biases, 2 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

!Blind Sprint

Overconfidence combined with planning fallacy creates unstoppable momentum toward failure.

!Echo Chamber

Group members reinforce each other's views, systematically filtering out dissenting signals.

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

Cognitive misering at scale: automating debt notices without human review shifted cognitive labor from government to vulnerable citizens
Framing welfare recipients as presumptively fraudulent justified a system that reversed the burden of proof
The algorithm's known methodological flaw (income averaging) was accepted because it produced revenue that met budget targets

Source: Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, Final Report (2023) (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Australian Department of Human Services'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 Australian Department of Human Services’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 Government

Catastrophic failure2017

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon

Grenfell Tower Fire

Catastrophic failure2014

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VA Health System Wait Time Scandal

Catastrophic failure1984

Continental Illinois National Bank

Continental Illinois Bank Bailout

Catastrophic failure2019

London Capital & Finance

London Capital & Finance Fraud

Lessons learned

Cognitive misering at scale: automating debt notices without human review shifted cognitive labor from government to vulnerable citizens

Framing welfare recipients as presumptively fraudulent justified a system that reversed the burden of proof

The algorithm's known methodological flaw (income averaging) was accepted because it produced revenue that met budget targets