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 146-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 were evident in Pets.com's collapse?

4 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Bandwagon Effect. The full set: Bandwagon Effect, Overconfidence Bias, Planning Fallacy, Inside-View Dominance. Each is mapped to Decision Intel's 22-bias R²F taxonomy with stable IDs and academic citations.

Did these cognitive biases cause Pets.com's collapse?

Decision Intel identifies reasoning-risk indicators correlated with poor outcomes — it does not claim to establish causation. That honesty is the procurement weapon: a CSO can defend a score that names the risk indicators a committee should pressure-test, not one that pretends to prove the cause. Bandwagon Effect and the other documented patterns were detectable in the reasoning before the outcome was known; whether they caused it is a question no audit can settle — too many other factors (market, timing, execution) are in play. A reasoning audit names the risk indicators a committee should pressure-test, not a verdict it should accept.

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 failureRetail1999

Pets.com

Pets.com National Scale-Up and Collapse

Estimated impact: ~$300M of invested capital consumed in under two years; liquidation 268 days after IPO; the emblem case of growth bought without retained revenue

F16

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 4 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

Pets.com raised roughly $300 million in private and public capital — including an $82.5 million IPO in February 2000 — to scale a national online pet-supply retailer on the strength of brand spend rather than unit economics. The company sold heavy, low-margin goods below cost with free or subsidized shipping, and bought customers with mass-market advertising (including a Super Bowl spot) whose acquisition cost exceeded any revenue a typical customer returned before lapsing. There was no retention mechanism: every period restarted from zero acquisition. Two hundred and sixty-eight days after the IPO, the company liquidated — the fastest prominent collapse of the dot-com cohort.

Decision context

Whether to scale a consumer e-commerce category nationally — committing to mass-market brand spend and fulfillment infrastructure — before cohort retention or per-order contribution margin had been demonstrated at any scale.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

High

Dissent suppressed

Yes

Time pressure

Present

Unanimous consensus

Yes

Decision participants

Dissent encouraged

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.

Biases present in the decision

★Bandwagon Effect

critical

Overconfidence Bias

high

Planning Fallacy

medium

Inside-View Dominance

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Pets.com · 4 biases, 2 toxic combinations

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 4 detected biases

Toxic combinations

!Optimism Trap

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

!Recency Spiral

Compound cognitive failure pattern identified in this decision.

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

89%

base failure rate

partial / mixed

11%

base success rate

■ Failure■ Partial■ Success

Lessons learned

Acquisition spend against unretained revenue is a treadmill: with no subscription or replenishment mechanism, every acquired cohort had to be re-bought, so scaling the marketing budget scaled the loss.
Negative per-order contribution (heavy goods shipped below cost) meant there was no volume at which the arithmetic turned positive — the growth curve measured capital consumption, not progress toward profitability.
The land-grab consensus of the category substituted for demand validation: the plan was underwritten on the sector narrative, not on any cohort that had demonstrated retention.

Source: Pets.com Form S-1 and 10-Q filings (SEC, 1999-2000); liquidation announcement and creditor filings (November 2000); contemporaneous coverage of the IPO-to-liquidation timeline (SEC Filing)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Pets.com'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 Pets.com’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 Retail

Catastrophic failure2000

AOL Time Warner

AOL-Time Warner Merger

Catastrophic failure2018

MoviePass / Helios & Matheson

MoviePass Subscription Collapse

Catastrophic failure2001

Webvan Group

Webvan Online Grocery Delivery Collapse

Catastrophic failure2019

Google

Google Stadia Cloud Gaming Shutdown

Lessons learned

Acquisition spend against unretained revenue is a treadmill: with no subscription or replenishment mechanism, every acquired cohort had to be re-bought, so scaling the marketing budget scaled the loss.

Negative per-order contribution (heavy goods shipped below cost) meant there was no volume at which the arithmetic turned positive — the growth curve measured capital consumption, not progress toward profitability.

The land-grab consensus of the category substituted for demand validation: the plan was underwritten on the sector narrative, not on any cohort that had demonstrated retention.