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 Johnson & Johnson's exceptional outcome?

4 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Loss Aversion. The full set: Loss Aversion, Anchoring Bias, Authority Bias, 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

Exceptional successHealthcare1982

Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson Tylenol Crisis Response

Estimated impact: $100M recall cost; brand value preserved; set industry safety standard

A88

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Excellent · 4 biases detected

When seven people died from cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules in 1982, J&J faced a decision that could destroy their most profitable product. Against the advice of the FBI and FDA (who recommended against a recall), J&J CEO James Burke ordered an immediate nationwide recall of 31 million bottles ($100M cost). The company redesigned packaging with tamper-evident seals, offered free replacements, and communicated transparently. Within a year, Tylenol recaptured 30% market share. The decision became the gold standard for corporate crisis management.

Decision context

Whether to recall all Tylenol products nationwide (at massive cost) or follow FBI/FDA guidance to limit the response to the Chicago area where deaths occurred.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Very high

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

Present

Unanimous consensus

Decision participants

Dissent encouraged

Yes

External advisors

Yes

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.

In Their Own Words

Primary-source quotes

“How do we protect the people? Not just the legal or financial considerations, but the people.”

James Burke, J&J CEO · October 1982

Biases present in the decision

★Loss Aversion

critical

Anchoring Bias

high

Authority Bias

high

Framing Effect

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Johnson & Johnson · 4 biases

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 4 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

Loss aversion (protecting revenue) was actively managed by framing the decision through the company's Credo values rather than through financial impact.
Authority bias from government agencies (FBI/FDA) was overridden by a CEO who prioritized consumer safety over institutional recommendations.
The honest mirror pattern — publicly acknowledging a crisis and taking decisive action — generated more brand trust than any amount of defensive communication.

Source: Harvard Business School Case 9-583-043 (1983); "The Tylenol Crisis" Chicago Tribune series (1982); J&J Annual Report (1983) (Case Study)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Johnson & Johnson'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 Johnson & Johnson’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 Healthcare

Catastrophic failure2010

DePuy Orthopaedics (Johnson & Johnson)

DePuy ASR Hip Implant Recall

Exceptional success2007

Apple

Apple iPhone Pivot: Cannibalizing the iPod

Exceptional success2013

Adobe

Adobe Creative Cloud SaaS Transition

Catastrophic failure2016

Insys Therapeutics

Insys Therapeutics Opioid Fraud

Lessons learned

Loss aversion (protecting revenue) was actively managed by framing the decision through the company's Credo values rather than through financial impact.

Authority bias from government agencies (FBI/FDA) was overridden by a CEO who prioritized consumer safety over institutional recommendations.

The honest mirror pattern — publicly acknowledging a crisis and taking decisive action — generated more brand trust than any amount of defensive communication.