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 UK Post Office / Fujitsu's collapse?

5 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Confirmation Bias. The full set: Confirmation Bias, Authority Bias, Groupthink, Status Quo Bias, Cognitive Misering. 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 failureGovernment1999

UK Post Office / Fujitsu

UK Post Office Horizon Scandal

Estimated impact: 700+ wrongful prosecutions; suicides; £1B+ in compensation

F14

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 5 biases detected, 2 toxic combinations

The Post Office prosecuted over 700 sub-postmasters for false accounting and theft based on faulty data from Fujitsu's Horizon IT system. The software had known bugs that created phantom shortfalls. The Post Office pursued criminal prosecutions despite internal evidence that Horizon was unreliable.

Decision context

Whether to investigate potential Horizon software defects when sub-postmasters reported unexplained shortfalls, or to continue prosecuting operators based on the assumption that the software was reliable.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

High

Dissent suppressed

Time pressure

None

Unanimous consensus

Yes

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

★Confirmation Bias

critical

Authority Bias

high

Groupthink

high

Status Quo Bias

medium

Cognitive Misering

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

UK Post Office / Fujitsu · 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.

!Yes Committee

Authority bias meets groupthink: the group converges on whatever leadership signals it wants.

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 led the Post Office to treat each sub-postmaster case as individual fraud rather than investigating a systemic software problem
Authority bias toward the IT system: the Post Office maintained that Horizon was "robust" despite mounting evidence of bugs
The most consequential UK miscarriage of justice in modern history resulted from institutions believing computers over people

Source: Sir Wyn Williams, "Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry" (ongoing, 2022-present); Court of Appeal judgment, Hamilton v Post Office [2021] (Post Mortem)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in UK Post Office / Fujitsu'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 UK Post Office / Fujitsu’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 failure2014

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VA Health System Wait Time Scandal

Catastrophic failure2020

Wirecard

Wirecard Accounting Fraud

Catastrophic failure2004

Merck

Vioxx Withdrawal

Catastrophic failure1996

Purdue Pharma

Purdue Pharma OxyContin Marketing

Lessons learned

Confirmation bias led the Post Office to treat each sub-postmaster case as individual fraud rather than investigating a systemic software problem

Authority bias toward the IT system: the Post Office maintained that Horizon was "robust" despite mounting evidence of bugs

The most consequential UK miscarriage of justice in modern history resulted from institutions believing computers over people