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 Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Groupthink. The full set: Groupthink, Authority Bias, Cognitive Misering, Status Quo Bias, Selective Perception. 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

Catastrophic failureHealthcare2005

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Mid Staffordshire NHS Hospital Scandal

Estimated impact: 400-1,200 excess deaths; institutional trust destroyed

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

Between 2005 and 2009, appalling care at Stafford Hospital led to 400-1,200 excess deaths. Staff shortages, target-driven management, and a culture of fear meant patients were left in soiled beds, went unfed, and drank water from flower vases. Multiple regulators failed to act on warning signs.

Decision context

Whether hospital management should have prioritized patient care over Foundation Trust status targets, and whether regulators should have intervened when mortality statistics showed significant outliers.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Low

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

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

★Groupthink

critical

Authority Bias

high

Cognitive Misering

medium

Status Quo Bias

medium

Selective Perception

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust · 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

!Yes Committee

Authority bias meets groupthink: the group converges on whatever leadership signals it wants.

!Status Quo Lock

Loss aversion combined with status quo bias makes even clearly beneficial change feel impossible.

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

Target-driven management that treats metrics as goals rather than indicators inevitably corrupts the metric and the underlying care
Cognitive misering by regulators who accepted statistical reports without investigating anomalous mortality data
Whistleblowers who raised concerns were disciplined rather than heard, destroying the organization's early warning system

Source: Robert Francis QC, "Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry" (2013) (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust'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 Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust’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 failure2016

Insys Therapeutics

Insys Therapeutics Opioid Fraud

Catastrophic failure2003

NASA

NASA Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

Catastrophic failure2014

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Flint Michigan Water Crisis

Catastrophic failure2001

Enron

Enron Accounting Fraud and Collapse

Lessons learned

Target-driven management that treats metrics as goals rather than indicators inevitably corrupts the metric and the underlying care

Cognitive misering by regulators who accepted statistical reports without investigating anomalous mortality data

Whistleblowers who raised concerns were disciplined rather than heard, destroying the organization's early warning system