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 Wells Fargo's failure?

3 bias patterns are documented in this case, led by Groupthink. The full set: Groupthink, Authority Bias, Bandwagon Effect. 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

FailureFinancial Services2016

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo Fake Accounts Scandal

Estimated impact: $3B

F37

Decision Quality Index (simulated)

Critical · 3 biases detected, 1 toxic combinations

Wells Fargo employees created over 3.5 million unauthorized bank and credit card accounts to meet aggressive cross-selling targets. The practice persisted for over a decade as management dismissed internal complaints and the board failed to investigate systemic misconduct.

Decision context

Whether to maintain aggressive cross-selling quotas and the "eight is great" strategy despite mounting evidence of employee misconduct and unauthorized account creation.

Decision anatomy

Monetary stakes

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: Internal Memo · 2010

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 2010.

Internal Memo · 2010

“2010 internal 'Going for Gr-Eight' cross-selling strategy memo setting 8-products-per-customer target”

Source: Wells Fargo Community Banking Division (Carrie Tolstedt)

Red flags detectable at decision time

8-product target was arbitrary with no customer-demand basis
Aggressive sales quotas creating perverse incentives
Whistleblower complaints already surfacing about fake accounts
Branch-level metrics showing statistically improbable account opening rates

Cognitive biases the platform would have flagged

GroupthinkAuthority BiasBandwagon Effect

Hypothetical analysis

Decision intelligence would have flagged the disconnect between the arbitrary '8 products' target and actual customer financial needs. The escalating whistleblower reports combined with statistically anomalous account-opening metrics would have triggered fraud-risk and incentive-misalignment warnings at high confidence.

Biases present in the decision

★Groupthink

critical

Authority Bias

high

Bandwagon Effect

medium

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

3D Decision Knowledge Graph

Wells Fargo · 3 biases, 1 toxic combination

Drag to rotate · Scroll to zoom · Click to explore

Decision

Critical

High

Medium

Toxic

Bias Intensity Profile

Severity × confidence across 3 detected biases

Toxic combinations

!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

Incentive structures that reward volume over quality create systemic pressure for misconduct at every organizational level.
When employees who report problems are fired rather than heard, the organization eliminates its own early warning system.
Authority bias toward a storied corporate culture ("the Wells Fargo way") prevented leaders from acknowledging systemic fraud.

Source: Wells Fargo Board Independent Directors Report (2017); CFPB Consent Order No. 2016-CFPB-0015 (Case Study)

Pilot slots available

We caught these patterns in Wells Fargo'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 Wells Fargo’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 VC / PE General Partners

Fund investment thesis audit

Audit a fund investment thesis before the LP raise — catch Narrative Coherence, Reference-Class Blindness, and Optimism Trap.

Audit a fund thesis

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

See all 6 workflows for the full audit-tool surface.

Related cases in Financial Services

Catastrophic failure2001

Enron

Enron Accounting Fraud and Collapse

Catastrophic failure2008

Lehman Brothers

Lehman Brothers Collapse

Catastrophic failure2015

Volkswagen

Volkswagen Dieselgate Emissions Scandal

Catastrophic failure1986

NASA

NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Lessons learned

Incentive structures that reward volume over quality create systemic pressure for misconduct at every organizational level.

When employees who report problems are fired rather than heard, the organization eliminates its own early warning system.

Authority bias toward a storied corporate culture ("the Wells Fargo way") prevented leaders from acknowledging systemic fraud.