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 were evident in Quibi's collapse?

6 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Overconfidence Bias. The full set: Overconfidence Bias, Confirmation Bias, Planning Fallacy, Groupthink, Anchoring Bias. Each is mapped to Decision Intel's 22-bias R²F taxonomy with stable IDs and academic citations.

Did these cognitive biases cause Quibi'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. Overconfidence Bias 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 failureTechnology2020

Quibi

Quibi Streaming Platform Failure

Estimated impact: $1.75B

F12

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 6 biases detected, 3 toxic combinations

Quibi raised $1.75 billion to launch a mobile-only short-form video platform, shutting down just six months after launch. Founders Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman were overconfident in the concept, ignored market research showing weak demand, and planned around assumptions that proved false when COVID-19 changed viewing habits.

Decision context

Whether to launch a premium mobile-only streaming service with short-form content in a market already saturated with free alternatives like YouTube and TikTok.

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: Investor Deck · 2019-08

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 in 2019-08.

Investor Deck · 2019-08

“Quibi's 2019 investor deck projected 7M paid subscribers within the first year at $4.99/$7.99/month. The plan was premised on three assumptions: (1) consumers would pay for premium short-form content competing with free YouTube/TikTok, (2) mobile-only consumption would be preserved via technical DRM, and (3) commute-time viewing would be the primary use case. Internal product prototypes launched April 2020 as COVID-19 shelter-in-place eliminated commutes. Social-sharing features were intentionally omitted — despite focus-group feedback identifying shareability as a top-3 user request.”

Source: Quibi investor materials (2019-2020); Bloomberg Businessweek 'Inside the Meltdown of Quibi' (Lucas Shaw, 2020); Vanity Fair reporting

Red flags detectable at decision time

7M first-year paid subscriber projection in a market with zero comparable freemium-to-paid conversion data
No social sharing — contradicting direct user-research input about Gen Z content consumption
Premium mobile-only premise in market with successful free-tier alternatives (TikTok launched US in 2017)
Commute-time use case as primary engagement driver — single-point forecast with no pandemic or WFH sensitivity
Founder duo (Katzenberg/Whitman) raising $1.75B before validating product-market fit

Cognitive biases the platform would have flagged

Overconfidence BiasHalo EffectConfirmation BiasPlanning Fallacy

Hypothetical analysis

DI would flag Quibi as the canonical halo-effect product failure. Katzenberg's DreamWorks prestige and Whitman's eBay operational reputation caused investors to treat a fragile hypothesis (Gen Z will pay for short-form premium) as a known quantity. A bias-adjusted process would have staged-gated the capital: raise $200M, build MVP, validate conversion in a single market, *then* scale. Raising $1.75B pre-launch locked in the premium-mobile-only strategy so tightly that when COVID invalidated the commute-time core thesis, there was no pivot runway.

Biases present in the decision

★Overconfidence Bias

critical

Confirmation Bias

high

Planning Fallacy

medium

Groupthink

high

Anchoring Bias

high

Halo Effect

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Quibi · 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

!Optimism Trap

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

!Golden Child

A favored initiative receives uncritical support, with scrutiny reserved for alternatives.

!Winner's Curse

Auction-dynamic anchoring drives bids above intrinsic value; "strategic necessity" and "competitive process" language flag the deal-fever pattern.

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

Celebrity founder status can attract capital but does not validate a flawed product-market hypothesis.
Planning fallacy led to overly optimistic subscriber projections that never materialized.
Confirmation bias in market research means hearing what you want from focus groups rather than what the data actually shows.

Source: Quibi investor communications (2020); Lucas Shaw, "Inside the Meltdown of Quibi" (Bloomberg Businessweek, 2020) (News Investigation)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Quibi's own record — before the outcome.

See the full hindsight-stripped 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 Quibi’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 Heads of Corp Dev and M&A advisors

M&A bias audit

Audit an acquisition thesis for the three named M&A failure patterns: Synergy Mirage, Conglomerate Fallacy, Winner's Curse.

Audit an acquisition thesis

For Heads of Corp Dev and Investment Committee chairs

IC memo pre-vote stress test

Stress-test an investment committee memo before the vote — catch Synergy Mirage, Winner's Curse, and Conglomerate Fallacy.

Audit your IC memo

See all 6 workflows for the full audit-tool surface.

Related cases in Technology

Catastrophic failure2013

Juicero

Juicero Press Failure

Failure2015

IBM

IBM Watson Health Strategic Failure

Failure2021

Zillow

Zillow iBuying Program Shutdown

Catastrophic failure2019

WeWork

WeWork Failed IPO and Valuation Collapse

Toxic combinations

!Optimism Trap

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

!Golden Child

A favored initiative receives uncritical support, with scrutiny reserved for alternatives.

!Winner's Curse

Auction-dynamic anchoring drives bids above intrinsic value; "strategic necessity" and "competitive process" language flag the deal-fever pattern.

Lessons learned

Celebrity founder status can attract capital but does not validate a flawed product-market hypothesis.

Planning fallacy led to overly optimistic subscriber projections that never materialized.

Confirmation bias in market research means hearing what you want from focus groups rather than what the data actually shows.