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 Takata Corporation's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Confirmation Bias. The full set: Loss Aversion, Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Misering, Status Quo Bias, Selective Perception. 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 failureAutomotive2013

Takata Corporation

Takata Airbag Defect and Bankruptcy

Estimated impact: $24B+ in recalls across industry; Takata bankrupt; 27+ deaths

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

Takata airbag inflators used ammonium nitrate propellant that degraded in heat and humidity, causing inflators to explode and spray metal shrapnel. The defect affected 67 million vehicles in the U.S. alone (the largest recall in automotive history). At least 27 deaths and 400+ injuries resulted.

Decision context

Whether to use ammonium nitrate as a cheaper propellant despite internal test data showing instability, and whether to disclose test failures to automaker customers.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

Very high

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

Present

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

Loss Aversion

medium

★Confirmation Bias

critical

Cognitive Misering

medium

Status Quo Bias

medium

Selective Perception

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Takata Corporation · 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

!Echo Chamber

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

!Status Quo Lock

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

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

Confirmation bias: Takata engineers who flagged propellant instability were overruled, and subsequent tests were designed to confirm the product was safe
Loss aversion: switching to a safer propellant would have cost market share to competitors and acknowledged a design flaw
The industry's tier-1 supplier structure meant OEMs relied on Takata's self-certification rather than independent verification

Source: NHTSA Consent Order (2015); DOJ criminal plea agreement (2017); Senate Commerce Committee hearing (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Takata Corporation'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 Takata Corporation’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 Automotive

Catastrophic failure2004

Merck

Vioxx Withdrawal

Catastrophic failure1996

Purdue Pharma

Purdue Pharma OxyContin Marketing

Catastrophic failure1999

UK Post Office / Fujitsu

UK Post Office Horizon Scandal

Failure2009

Toyota Motor Corporation

Toyota Unintended Acceleration Crisis

Lessons learned

Confirmation bias: Takata engineers who flagged propellant instability were overruled, and subsequent tests were designed to confirm the product was safe

Loss aversion: switching to a safer propellant would have cost market share to competitors and acknowledged a design flaw

The industry's tier-1 supplier structure meant OEMs relied on Takata's self-certification rather than independent verification