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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Cognitive Misering. The full set: Cognitive Misering, Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, Selective Perception, Authority Bias. 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 failureGovernment2017

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon

Grenfell Tower Fire

Estimated impact: 72 deaths; £1B+ in cladding remediation across UK; regulatory overhaul

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

A fire in the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London killed 72 people. The building had been recently refurbished with combustible ACM cladding to improve its appearance. Resident complaints about fire safety were ignored. The "stay put" advice proved fatal as the cladding turned the building into an inferno.

Decision context

Whether to use combustible aluminum composite material (ACM) cladding during the refurbishment to save £293,000 compared to fire-resistant alternatives, and whether to investigate resident fire safety complaints.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Medium

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

None

Unanimous consensus

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

★Cognitive Misering

critical

Loss Aversion

medium

Status Quo Bias

medium

Selective Perception

medium

Authority Bias

high

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon · 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

!Status Quo Lock

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

!Echo Chamber

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

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

Saving £293,000 on non-combustible cladding on a building housing hundreds of people represents cognitive misering at its most lethal
Resident complaints about fire safety were dismissed as "troublemaking" — selective perception filtered out the people with the most direct risk information
Building regulations that relied on "desktop studies" rather than full-scale fire testing created a systemic knowledge gap about cladding fire behavior

Source: Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report (2019); Phase 2 Report (2024) (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon'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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea / Rydon’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 Government

Catastrophic failure2019

London Capital & Finance

London Capital & Finance Fraud

Catastrophic failure2014

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Flint Michigan Water Crisis

Catastrophic failure2016

Australian Department of Human Services

Australia Robodebt Scheme

Catastrophic failure1989

Exxon Shipping Company

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Lessons learned

Saving £293,000 on non-combustible cladding on a building housing hundreds of people represents cognitive misering at its most lethal

Resident complaints about fire safety were dismissed as "troublemaking" — selective perception filtered out the people with the most direct risk information

Building regulations that relied on "desktop studies" rather than full-scale fire testing created a systemic knowledge gap about cladding fire behavior