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 failureAutomotive2014

General Motors

GM Ignition Switch Defect Cover-Up

Estimated impact: $4.1B in recalls, fines, and settlements; 124 deaths

F14

Decision Quality Index

Critical — 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

GM knew about a faulty ignition switch since 2001 that could cut engine power and disable airbags. The defect was linked to 124 deaths and 275 injuries. Engineers had identified the problem but a cost-benefit analysis estimated the fix at $0.57 per car — and GM still delayed the recall for over a decade.

Decision context

Whether to recall vehicles with a known ignition switch defect when the per-unit fix cost was trivial but the total program cost and reputational impact of admitting a long-hidden defect were significant.

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

★ Loss AversionStatus Quo BiasCognitive MiseringGroupthinkAuthority Bias

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

General Motors — 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

Status Quo Lock
Echo Chamber

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

90%

base failure rate

10%

base success rate

Lessons learned

Loss aversion around recall costs and reputational damage prevented action on a $0.57 fix for over a decade
Status quo bias: the switch "passed" internal standards even though those standards were inadequate
GM's internal culture of avoiding blame ("GM nod" and "GM salute") meant no individual took responsibility for escalating the defect

Source: Valukas Report (commissioned by GM Board, 2014); NHTSA investigation; DOJ Deferred Prosecution Agreement (2015) (Post Mortem)

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 General Motors, 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 Automotive

Catastrophic failure2015

Volkswagen

Volkswagen Dieselgate Emissions Scandal

Catastrophic failure2015

Volkswagen AG

Volkswagen Dieselgate Emissions Fraud

Catastrophic failure2013

Takata Corporation

Takata Airbag Defect and Bankruptcy

Lessons learned

Loss aversion around recall costs and reputational damage prevented action on a $0.57 fix for over a decade

Status quo bias: the switch "passed" internal standards even though those standards were inadequate

GM's internal culture of avoiding blame ("GM nod" and "GM salute") meant no individual took responsibility for escalating the defect