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

Catastrophic failureFinancial Services2017

Steinhoff International

Steinhoff International Accounting Fraud

Estimated impact: €6.5B in fictitious profits; 90% share price collapse

F12

Decision Quality Index

Critical — 6 biases detected, 3 toxic combinations

South African-Dutch retail conglomerate Steinhoff revealed €6.5B in accounting irregularities involving fictitious transactions and inflated asset values. The fraud was orchestrated by a small group around CEO Markus Jooste, who resigned when the fraud was discovered.

Decision context

Whether Steinhoff's supervisory board and auditors should have investigated related-party transaction structures and off-balance-sheet entities that were flagged by a former CFO.

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

★ Authority BiasConfirmation BiasSelective PerceptionCognitive MiseringGroupthinkHalo Effect

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Steinhoff International — 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

Echo Chamber
Yes Committee
Golden Child

Reference class base rates

Across all 146 curated case studies in our library:

90%

base failure rate

10%

base success rate

Lessons learned

Authority bias around a charismatic CEO allowed complex fraud to persist for over a decade
Selective perception by auditors (Deloitte) who failed to verify related-party transactions
Cognitive misering in board oversight — accepting management representations without independent verification

Source: PwC forensic investigation report on Steinhoff (2019); FSCA enforcement action (News Investigation)

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 Steinhoff International, 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 Financial Services

Catastrophic failure2008

Lehman Brothers

Lehman Brothers Collapse

Catastrophic failure2007

Bear Stearns

Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Collapse

Failure2012

JPMorgan Chase

JPMorgan London Whale Trading Losses