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 bias interaction matrix for compound scoring, 30+ cognitive biases benchmarked across 135 historical decisions, and an outcome flywheel that gets smarter with every confirmed decision.

All case studies

Catastrophic failureFinancial Services1998Model-Worship + Unchallenged Expertise

Long-Term Capital Management

Long-Term Capital Management Collapse

Estimated impact: $4.6B

F28/100

Decision Quality Index · Critical

The presence of two Nobel laureates made the model un-challengeable internally (authority bias), external risk voices were absent (no non-principal risk committee), and the 1997 capital return increased rather than decreased effective leverage — a decision only explicable under overconfidence.

Overconfidence BiasAuthority BiasGroupthink

See this case as a live audit

LTCM, a hedge fund staffed by Nobel laureates and renowned traders, nearly collapsed the global financial system when its highly leveraged convergence trades failed during the Russian financial crisis. The fund's models assumed historical correlations would hold, leading to $4.6 billion in losses and a Federal Reserve-coordinated bailout.

Decision context

Whether to reduce leverage and position concentration as emerging market volatility increased in mid-1998, or to trust that models based on historical data would hold.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Very high

Dissent suppressed

Yes

Time pressure

Present

Unanimous consensus

Yes

Decision participants

Dissent encouraged

External advisors

Iterative process

Red = risk factor present · Green = protective factor present

Decision Intel Platform Analysis

Source: Financial Report · 1997

The analysis below was produced from the pre-decision document only — no hindsight. This is what the platform would have surfaced if it had been running at the time.

Financial Report · 1997

“1997 annual investor letter describing 'negligible' portfolio risk based on Value-at-Risk models”

Source: Long-Term Capital Management Partners (John Meriwether)

Red flags detectable at decision time

VaR models assuming normal distributions in fat-tailed markets
Leverage exceeding 25:1 on notional $1.25T
Correlation assumptions based on 5-year lookback missing regime changes
Nobel laureate credentials creating authority bias in risk oversight

Cognitive biases the platform would have flagged

Overconfidence BiasAnchoring BiasCognitive MiseringGroupthinkConfirmation BiasGambler's Fallacy

Hypothetical analysis

A decision intelligence system would have flagged the fundamental model risk — VaR calculations assuming normal distributions while the fund's own leverage amplified tail-risk exposure. The 'negligible risk' characterization in the investor letter, contradicted by 25:1 leverage ratios, would have triggered overconfidence and authority bias warnings.

Evidence Timeline

What was visible, and when

Every event below was documentable before the outcome was known. The platform looks for signals like these in live memos.

1994-02
LTCM launches with $1.25B from 80 investors at 25× leverage; initial principals include Meriwether, Scholes, Merton, and ex-Fed Vice Chairman David Mullins.
PWG Report, Appendix A
1996
Returns of 41% net of fees; fund becomes unable to deploy new capital at same convergence spreads, signaling trade crowding.
Lowenstein, "When Genius Failed", ch. 7
1997-12
Fund returns $2.7B to investors — but retains full trading book, actually *increasing* leverage relative to equity base.
LTCM 1997 investor letter
1998-05
Salomon Smith Barney closes its arbitrage desk, unwinding positions similar to LTCM — the first warning that "convergence" strategies were becoming divergent.
PWG Report, ch. 3
1998-08-17
Russia defaults on ruble-denominated debt; flight-to-quality drives spreads wider rather than narrower. LTCM loses 44% of capital in one month.
Federal Reserve Board staff study (Kambhu et al., 2007)
1998-09-23
Fed-organized consortium of 14 banks injects $3.625B to prevent forced liquidation; LTCM effectively dissolved.
PWG Report, ch. 4

In Their Own Words

Primary-source quotes

“The fund returned capital of $2.7 billion to investors... because the opportunities had become too few.”

John Meriwether, Founding Principal

LTCM 1997 Annual Letter to Investors · 1997-12

“Our results should not be too different from the market, and our long-term record is one of minimum drawdowns.”

John Meriwether, Founding Principal

LTCM investor communication, Q2 1998 · 1998-07

“What we did will be seen as completely sensible to a dispassionate observer... we had the right strategy — we simply had too much leverage.”

Myron Scholes, Nobel Laureate & LTCM Principal

Interview with Myron Scholes, cited in "When Genius Failed" · 1999

Who Was in the Room

Stakeholders and positions

Who advocated, who dissented, who was overruled, and who stayed silent — the most reliable single signal of decision-process quality.

John Meriwether

Advocate

Founding Principal & CEO

Pushed to return capital in 1997 to keep per-partner returns high rather than shrink leverage.

Myron Scholes

Advocate

Principal (Nobel Laureate, Options Pricing)

Publicly defended the model framework; later acknowledged leverage as the core error.

Robert Merton

Advocate

Principal (Nobel Laureate, Continuous-Time Finance)

David Mullins

Silent

Principal (former Fed Vice Chair)

Brought regulatory gravitas but did not publicly flag leverage or crowding concerns.

Eric Rosenfeld

Advocate

Principal (risk & trading systems)

Biases present in the decision

★Overconfidence Bias

critical

Anchoring Bias

high

Cognitive Misering

medium

Groupthink

high

Confirmation Bias

high

Gambler's Fallacy

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Long-Term Capital Management — 6 biases, 3 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

!Echo Chamber

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

!Optimism Trap

Overconfidence and availability bias create a systematically positive outlook that ignores base rates.

!Doubling Down

Confirmation bias reinforces sunk cost thinking into an escalating commitment loop.

Counterfactual

What a bias-adjusted process would have done

Recommendation

Retain 1997 capital base (avoid the forced leverage increase); cap gross leverage at 10:1; diversify across strategies with genuinely uncorrelated drivers; install an independent non-principal risk officer with veto power.

Why it would have worked

Every bias LTCM exhibited traces to a closed-loop where the same people who designed the models also signed off on leverage and rejected external challenge. The model wasn't the problem — absence of any external risk voice was.

Estimated alternative outcome

Fund survives Russia default with 15–20% drawdown rather than 44%; likely continues operating through the early 2000s before gradual wind-down.

Reference class base rates

Across all 135 curated case studies in our library:

89%

base failure rate

partial / mixed

11%

base success rate

■ Failure■ Partial■ Success

Lessons learned

Quantitative models anchored to historical data fail catastrophically during regime changes and tail events.
The presence of Nobel laureates and star talent does not immunize an organization against overconfidence.
Extreme leverage transforms manageable losses into systemic crises.

Post-Mortem Sources

Where the facts come from

01
President's Working Group on Financial Markets Report(1999)
02
Roger Lowenstein, "When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management"(2000)
03
Kambhu, Schuermann & Stiroh, "Hedge Funds, Financial Intermediation, and Systemic Risk" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 291)(2007)

Source: Roger Lowenstein, "When Genius Failed" (2000); President's Working Group on Financial Markets Report (1999) (Academic Paper)

Pilot slots available

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

Upload a strategic memo or board deck. Get the same hindsight-stripped analysis you just saw for Long-Term Capital Management, 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 →

Cross-Case Pattern

Other decisions with the same pattern

Long-Term Capital Management

Long-Term Capital Management Collapse

Estimated impact: $4.6B

F28/100

Decision Quality Index · Critical

Overconfidence BiasAuthority BiasGroupthink

See this case as a live audit

What was visible, and when

Every event below was documentable before the outcome was known. The platform looks for signals like these in live memos.

1994-02

LTCM launches with $1.25B from 80 investors at 25× leverage; initial principals include Meriwether, Scholes, Merton, and ex-Fed Vice Chairman David Mullins.

PWG Report, Appendix A

1996

Returns of 41% net of fees; fund becomes unable to deploy new capital at same convergence spreads, signaling trade crowding.

Lowenstein, "When Genius Failed", ch. 7

1997-12

Fund returns $2.7B to investors — but retains full trading book, actually *increasing* leverage relative to equity base.

LTCM 1997 investor letter

1998-05

Salomon Smith Barney closes its arbitrage desk, unwinding positions similar to LTCM — the first warning that "convergence" strategies were becoming divergent.

PWG Report, ch. 3

1998-08-17

Russia defaults on ruble-denominated debt; flight-to-quality drives spreads wider rather than narrower. LTCM loses 44% of capital in one month.

Federal Reserve Board staff study (Kambhu et al., 2007)

1998-09-23

Fed-organized consortium of 14 banks injects $3.625B to prevent forced liquidation; LTCM effectively dissolved.

PWG Report, ch. 4

Primary-source quotes

“The fund returned capital of $2.7 billion to investors... because the opportunities had become too few.”

John Meriwether, Founding Principal

LTCM 1997 Annual Letter to Investors · 1997-12

“Our results should not be too different from the market, and our long-term record is one of minimum drawdowns.”

John Meriwether, Founding Principal

LTCM investor communication, Q2 1998 · 1998-07

“What we did will be seen as completely sensible to a dispassionate observer... we had the right strategy — we simply had too much leverage.”

Myron Scholes, Nobel Laureate & LTCM Principal

Interview with Myron Scholes, cited in "When Genius Failed" · 1999

Stakeholders and positions

Who advocated, who dissented, who was overruled, and who stayed silent — the most reliable single signal of decision-process quality.

John Meriwether

Advocate

Founding Principal & CEO

Pushed to return capital in 1997 to keep per-partner returns high rather than shrink leverage.

Myron Scholes

Advocate

Principal (Nobel Laureate, Options Pricing)

Publicly defended the model framework; later acknowledged leverage as the core error.

Robert Merton

Advocate

Principal (Nobel Laureate, Continuous-Time Finance)

David Mullins

Silent

Principal (former Fed Vice Chair)

Brought regulatory gravitas but did not publicly flag leverage or crowding concerns.

Eric Rosenfeld

Advocate

Principal (risk & trading systems)

Toxic combinations

!Echo Chamber

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

!Optimism Trap

Overconfidence and availability bias create a systematically positive outlook that ignores base rates.

!Doubling Down

Confirmation bias reinforces sunk cost thinking into an escalating commitment loop.

What a bias-adjusted process would have done

Recommendation

Why it would have worked

Estimated alternative outcome

Fund survives Russia default with 15–20% drawdown rather than 44%; likely continues operating through the early 2000s before gradual wind-down.

Where the facts come from

01

President's Working Group on Financial Markets Report(1999)

02

Roger Lowenstein, "When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management"(2000)

03

Kambhu, Schuermann & Stiroh, "Hedge Funds, Financial Intermediation, and Systemic Risk" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 291)(2007)