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

FailureAerospace1990

NASA / Perkin-Elmer

Hubble Space Telescope Mirror Flaw

Estimated impact: $50M for COSTAR corrective optics mission; 3 years of degraded science

F28

Decision Quality Index

Critical — 6 biases detected, 3 toxic combinations

The $1.5B Hubble Space Telescope launched with a primary mirror ground to the wrong shape (2 micrometers too flat at the edges). The error was caused by a miscalibrated null corrector during manufacturing and was not caught by end-to-end optical testing because NASA cut the test to save $2M.

Decision context

Whether to skip end-to-end optical testing of the Hubble primary mirror to save costs and maintain schedule, relying instead on component-level testing that used the same flawed calibration instrument.

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 MiseringAnchoring BiasOverconfidence BiasPlanning FallacyConfirmation BiasZeigarnik Effect

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

NASA / Perkin-Elmer — 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

Blind Sprint
Echo Chamber
Deadline Panic

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

90%

base failure rate

10%

base success rate

Lessons learned

Skipping end-to-end verification testing to save $2M on a $1.5B system is false economy of the highest order
Cognitive misering: component tests that showed anomalies were explained away rather than investigated
Confirmation bias: the test data that would have revealed the flaw was available but was interpreted to confirm the mirror was correct

Source: NASA Hubble Space Telescope Optical Systems Board of Investigation (Allen Board) Report (1990) (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 NASA / Perkin-Elmer, 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 Aerospace

Catastrophic failure2018

Boeing

Boeing 737 MAX MCAS Design Failures

Catastrophic failure1986

NASA

NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Catastrophic failure2003

NASA

NASA Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

Lessons learned

Skipping end-to-end verification testing to save $2M on a $1.5B system is false economy of the highest order

Cognitive misering: component tests that showed anomalies were explained away rather than investigated

Confirmation bias: the test data that would have revealed the flaw was available but was interpreted to confirm the mirror was correct