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 Services2019

London Capital & Finance

London Capital & Finance Fraud

Estimated impact: £237M investor losses

F14

Decision Quality Index

Critical — 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

LCF raised £237M from 11,600 investors through misleading ISA bonds promising 8% returns. Funds were lent to connected parties for high-risk ventures. The FCA failed to act on warnings for years, and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme initially refused coverage.

Decision context

Whether the FCA should have intervened earlier when it received complaints about LCF's marketing of unregulated mini-bonds through regulated ISA wrappers.

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 MiseringStatus Quo BiasAuthority BiasSelective PerceptionConfirmation Bias

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

London Capital & Finance — 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
Blind Sprint

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

90%

base failure rate

10%

base success rate

Lessons learned

Cognitive misering in regulatory oversight means complaints are processed bureaucratically rather than analytically
The regulatory perimeter gap between ISA wrappers (regulated) and mini-bonds (unregulated) was exploited
Status quo bias in the FCA led to treating each complaint in isolation rather than identifying a systemic pattern

Source: Dame Elizabeth Gloster Independent Investigation into the FCA's Regulation of LCF (2020) (FCA Enforcement)

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 London Capital & Finance, 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

Cognitive misering in regulatory oversight means complaints are processed bureaucratically rather than analytically

The regulatory perimeter gap between ISA wrappers (regulated) and mini-bonds (unregulated) was exploited

Status quo bias in the FCA led to treating each complaint in isolation rather than identifying a systemic pattern