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 Samsung Electronics's collapse?

6 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Planning Fallacy. The full set: Planning Fallacy, Overconfidence Bias, Groupthink, Optimism Bias, Confirmation 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 failureTechnology2016

Samsung Electronics

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Recall

Estimated impact: $5.3B in direct costs; $17B market cap loss

F12

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 6 biases detected, 3 toxic combinations

Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 was recalled twice and permanently discontinued after batteries caught fire in users' hands and pockets. Samsung rushed development to beat the iPhone 7 launch, compressed battery testing timelines, and the first recall used replacement batteries from a second supplier that also had defects.

Decision context

Whether to compress the development timeline for the Galaxy Note 7 to launch before the iPhone 7, and whether the first recall's replacement batteries were adequately tested.

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: Risk Assessment · March 2016

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 March 2016.

Risk Assessment · March 2016

“2016 internal battery testing timeline showing compressed QA schedule to beat iPhone 7 launch”

Source: Samsung Mobile Division Product Management

Red flags detectable at decision time

Testing timeline compressed by 3 weeks vs standard protocol
Dual-supplier battery strategy without unified testing criteria
Thermal runaway incidents in early prototypes attributed to 'isolated cases'
Competitive pressure overriding safety margins

Cognitive biases the platform would have flagged

Optimism BiasPlanning FallacyGroupthink

Hypothetical analysis

A decision intelligence system would have flagged the compressed testing timeline as a classic speed-safety tradeoff driven by competitive anchoring to Apple's launch date. The dismissal of early thermal incidents as 'isolated' would have triggered optimism bias and normalcy bias warnings.

Biases present in the decision

★Planning Fallacy

critical

Overconfidence Bias

high

Groupthink

high

Optimism Bias

medium

Confirmation Bias

high

Zeigarnik Effect

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Samsung Electronics · 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

Overconfidence combined with planning fallacy creates unstoppable momentum toward failure.

!Optimism Trap

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

!Deadline Panic

Compound cognitive failure pattern identified in this decision.

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

Blind Sprint: compressing hardware testing timelines to beat a competitor launch creates catastrophic safety risk
The first recall used inadequately tested replacement batteries, compounding the original planning fallacy
Optimism bias in quality assurance led Samsung to believe limited testing could substitute for full validation cycles

Source: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Investigation Report (2017); U.S. CPSC recall notices (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Samsung Electronics'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 Samsung Electronics’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 Technology

Partial failure2021

Rivian Automotive

Rivian Production Target Failures

Catastrophic failure2018

MoviePass / Helios & Matheson

MoviePass Subscription Collapse

Catastrophic failure2018

Boeing

Boeing 737 MAX MCAS Design Failures

Failure2013

US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Healthcare.gov Launch Failure

Lessons learned

Blind Sprint: compressing hardware testing timelines to beat a competitor launch creates catastrophic safety risk

The first recall used inadequately tested replacement batteries, compounding the original planning fallacy

Optimism bias in quality assurance led Samsung to believe limited testing could substitute for full validation cycles