Workflow-specific audits across every strategic decision artefact.
Strategic memo, IC memo, board deck, fund thesis, M&A acquisition, pre-mortem. Each workflow runs through the same Recognition-Rigor Framework pipeline — calibrated against the same 143-case reference library — with the overlays specific to that artefact class.
Audit a strategic memo for cognitive bias and forecast errors in 60 seconds — before the board sees it.
You're writing a strategic memo the executive team will react to. Every line carries weight.
Cognitive bias compounds invisibly: confirmation, anchoring, narrative coherence. By the time the board catches it, the memo has shaped the decision.
How do you stress-test your own reasoning before the room does?
Decision Intel runs a 22-bias Recognition-Rigor Framework audit on the memo text. The audit catches what the author cannot — by construction. 143-case reference library calibrated.
How it works
Most strategic memos pass cleanly. The ones that do not are the ones that destroy value. You cannot tell the catastrophic memo from the clean memo without auditing both — which is why you run the audit on every memo, not just the suspicious ones. The 60-second audit is a structural friction layer between thinking and acting.
Related from the case library
FAQ
Stress-test an investment committee memo before the vote — catch Synergy Mirage, Winner's Curse, and Conglomerate Fallacy.
Your investment committee is voting on a deal next week. The memo is in everyone's inbox.
The room reads the memo as authored. The synergy claims, the comp set, the why-now: every line is a candidate for the patterns that produce 70-90% deal-failure rates per McKinsey + KPMG.
Where exactly does this memo fail to defend itself? And what would the audit committee ask?
Decision Intel runs the M&A-specific overlays — Synergy Mirage detection, BCG-mandate filter on every synergy claim, Conglomerate Fallacy and Winner's Curse compound patterns — before the IC convenes. Verbatim hardening questions for the sponsor.
How it works
IC memo failures are biased toward overcommitment + narrative coherence: the sponsor wrote the memo to close the deal, and the room reads it from the same frame. The audit is the antagonist that costs no political capital — fires before the IC memo can hide what the deal sponsor does not want to see.
Related from the case library
FAQ
Audit a board deck before the presentation — predict the toughest questions the room will ask.
You're presenting to the board on Thursday. The deck is set; the talking points are not.
Board members are pattern-matchers. They have seen this kind of decision before — and they will ask the question you forgot to anticipate. Most of the damage in a board meeting happens in the Q&A, not the deck.
What are the three hardest questions the board will ask, and how do you answer them now?
Decision Intel audits the deck, runs the boardroom simulator across 5 personas (Margaret-class CSO, Damien-class corp dev head, James-class GC, Adaeze-class PE partner, Riya-class VC associate), and surfaces predicted Q&A with verbatim suggested responses.
How it works
A board meeting is a high-stakes single-shot event. The presenter cannot run the audit during the meeting — only before. The boardroom simulator is the dress rehearsal: every persona-voiced question that fires in the simulator is a question that does not surprise you in the room.
Related from the case library
FAQ
Audit a fund investment thesis before the LP raise — catch Narrative Coherence, Reference-Class Blindness, and Optimism Trap.
You're raising the next fund. The thesis is the pitch — and it's also the document LPs will hold you accountable to.
Narrative coherence is the GP killer: a beautifully-coherent thesis attracts capital and locks in a frame that 5-10 years of deployment may not honour. Inside-view dominance compounds when the GP wrote the prior fund and is grading its own paper.
Where does the thesis fail to defend itself against an outside-view reviewer who has never seen this fund's prior performance?
Decision Intel runs the Recognition-Rigor Framework on the thesis text — narrative coherence detection, 143-case reference library lookup, inside-view dominance flag, validity-class shift for low-validity domains.
How it works
The thesis sets the frame for every IC vote in the next 5-10 years. A flawed thesis compounds across every deal in the fund. The audit catches the patterns the GP wrote in — patterns the GP cannot see because the GP is operating from the inside view by construction.
Related from the case library
FAQ
Audit an acquisition thesis for the three named M&A failure patterns: Synergy Mirage, Conglomerate Fallacy, Winner's Curse.
You're recommending an acquisition. The deal team has spent months on diligence. The thesis is set.
70-90% of acquisitions miss their synergy targets per McKinsey + KPMG. The patterns that drive the failures are visible in the original memo — but only if you know what to look for.
Which of the three named M&A failure patterns does this thesis fire on, and what is the procurement-grade response to each?
Decision Intel runs the M&A overlays — Synergy Mirage with BCG-mandate filter, Conglomerate Fallacy with parenting-advantage test, Winner's Curse with auction-dynamics detection. Compound-pattern severity bands on the DPR cover.
How it works
M&A failure is rarely a surprise on the day. It is a slow-motion failure visible in the original memo to anyone outside the deal team. The audit is the outside-view layer that the inside-view deal team cannot supply for itself.
Related from the case library
FAQ
Run a structured pre-mortem before the decision is final — surface failure modes the room cannot see from the inside.
You've reached the decision point. The room is converging on a recommendation.
Klein & Mitchell 1995 + Mitchell-Russo-Pennington 1989 found that asking the room "what could go wrong?" produces conditional-voice hedging. Asking them to describe the disaster in past tense produces 25-30% more, higher-quality failure-cause insights.
What does the failure look like a year from now, in past tense — and what is the warning sign everyone missed?
Decision Intel runs the prospective-hindsight pre-mortem on the decision memo: projects one year forward, frames the outcome as a total disaster, generates the history of how it failed. Identifies the warning sign in the original memo before the decision is committed.
How it works
A pre-mortem is the single highest-leverage discipline in strategic decision-making per the Kahneman literature. The audit operationalises it: every decision gets the pre-mortem treatment, every failure mode gets a falsifiable proxy, every outcome gets logged. The calibration loop is the moat, not the audit.
Related from the case library
FAQ
One pipeline. Six workflow surfaces. Same calibrated audit.
Paste a memo and see the audit run end-to-end — free, no card.
Run the live demo