How is sensitive data protected?

All documents are encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit. A GDPR anonymization layer removes PII before any AI processing. Your data never leaves our SOC 2 certified infrastructure.

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?

ChatGPT gives one opinion from one model. Decision Intel uses 3 independent judges for noise measurement, a 20×20 bias interaction matrix for compound scoring, 31 domain-specific biases, and an outcome flywheel that gets smarter with every decision.

All case studies

Catastrophic failureFinancial Services1995

Barings Bank

Barings Bank Collapse

Estimated impact: $1.3B

F12

Decision Quality Index

Critical — 6 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

Nick Leeson, a derivatives trader in Barings' Singapore office, accumulated $1.3 billion in hidden losses through unauthorized speculative trades on Nikkei futures. The 233-year-old bank collapsed when the losses were discovered, as management had granted Leeson unsupervised authority over both trading and settlement.

Decision context

Whether to maintain Leeson's dual role overseeing both trading execution and back-office settlement without independent oversight.

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

★ Authority BiasOverconfidence BiasStatus Quo BiasGroupthinkCognitive MiseringGambler's Fallacy

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Barings Bank — 6 biases, 2 toxic combinations

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 6 detected biases

Toxic combinations

Yes Committee
Doubling Down

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

90%

base failure rate

10%

base success rate

Lessons learned

Separation of duties between trading and settlement is a non-negotiable control; combining them invites fraud.
Authority bias led management to trust a profitable trader without questioning the source of returns.
Remote offices with insufficient oversight can become vectors for catastrophic risk accumulation.

Source: Bank of England Board of Banking Supervision Report on Barings (1995) (Case Study)

Pilot slots available

See what we'd flag in your next strategic memo.

Upload a strategic memo or board deck. Get the same bias audit you just saw for Barings Bank, on your own high-stakes call, in under 60 seconds.

Try the Demo — Free Request a Pilot

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

Ready to audit your own memo right now? Create a free account →

Related cases in Financial Services

Catastrophic failure2008

Lehman Brothers

Lehman Brothers Collapse

Catastrophic failure2007

Bear Stearns

Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Collapse

Failure2012

JPMorgan Chase

JPMorgan London Whale Trading Losses

Lessons learned

Separation of duties between trading and settlement is a non-negotiable control; combining them invites fraud.

Authority bias led management to trust a profitable trader without questioning the source of returns.

Remote offices with insufficient oversight can become vectors for catastrophic risk accumulation.