Skip to content

Standing facts

  • 08 engines · one evidence model
  • 02 arenas · francophone Europe / Africa
  • Entry from 2 minutes · free, no account needed
  • Every engagement ends in a verdict , never a slide deck
  • Fees anchored to value at stake · never consultant days
  • Every instrument published blank · 33 rows in the public register
Decision engine 06 · Leadership, governance and risk

The board vote is the worst place to discover the evidence was thin.

Which high-stakes decisions are ready for authorization?

Flagship · Board Decision Assurance Twin™
Where it breaks

Board packs hide the burden of proof.

  1. 01

    Boards receive polished recommendations, but the burden of proof is often uneven.

  2. 02

    Material risks, contradictions and conditions can remain buried in board packs.

  3. 03

    Authorization must include evidence quality, alternatives, conditions, owners and replay.

STREDGELAB response: assure the evidence before the vote, not after.

Signature diagram

From burden of proof to authorization.

  1. 1
    Burden of proof
  2. 2
    Evidence stack
  3. 3
    Alternatives
  4. 4
    Conditions
  5. 5
    Decision replayNEXT
Decision rule

Authorization is earned rung by rung, or withheld.

Gate record

What this engine has passed.

Internal gates passed
33/33
Assurance rung
L3 candidate

A gate is one internal technical check the engine must pass before its output is treated as signed: a reconciliation, a boundary condition, or a determinism-and-replay test. The count is gates passed of gates defined. Independent certification is pending across all engines.

How the assurance ladder works →

Worked example

Six assertions, one authorization, no averaging.

A board is asked to authorise a €40m capital programme. The twin sets the burden of proof as six assertions the paper must carry, and grades each one on its own evidence.

Demand holds at the assumed volumeEvidenced
The build cost is boundedEvidenced
Capacity can be commissioned on timeEvidenced
Funding survives the downside caseEvidenced
The permitting path is clearPartial
The exit case is credibleOpen
Assertions carried4 of 6
VerdictOne open assertion is enoughWithheld
Illustrative figures, chosen to show how the arithmetic runs. They are not client data and not a benchmark.

Four strong assertions do not compensate for one open one, so authorization is withheld rather than qualified. The output states the two measurements that would clear it, and the board can replay the decision when they land.

The engine system

Deterministic engines. Governed outputs.

Deterministic engine layer
  • Decision materiality engine
  • Truth stack engine
  • Evidence strength engine
  • Challenge completeness engine
  • Decision assurance gate
Signature IP
Decision outcomes

The evidence resolves to an outcome.

01
Ready for authorization
02
Ready with conditions
03
Not ready
04
Escalate or defer

L3 candidate · 33/33 internal gates passed · independent certification pending

Assurance and governance

AI may explain, summarise, translate and draft from signed engine outputs. It cannot calculate authoritative values, select decision states, approve actions or alter audit records.

The message

One decision. One verdict.

Bring us the decision. We build the evidence, and end on a verdict you can defend.

  • Ready for authorization
  • Ready with conditions
  • Not ready
  • Escalate or defer
Before you instruct

The questions buyers actually ask.

Why can't strong evidence offset a gap?

Because the assertions are not substitutes for one another. A programme that cannot be permitted does not become permittable because demand is well evidenced. Scoring is non-compensatory by design: the weakest necessary assertion sets the verdict.

Does this override the board?

No. The board authorises; the engine states what the paper does and does not carry, and records the conditions under which the verdict would change. Overriding it is a legitimate board act — an undocumented override is not.

What is decision replay?

Re-running the same decision on the evidence as it stood, months or years later: same inputs, same outputs, traceable. It is what lets a successor understand why the decision was reasonable at the time.

Arenas & Situations We Know
Family-owned groups·Founder-led companies·PE portfolio companies·Country subsidiaries·France · United Kingdom · Belgium · Luxembourg · Switzerland·Côte d'Ivoire · Senegal · Benin · Togo·Cameroon · Morocco · Guinea·Paris · Brussels · Geneva corridors

Evidence for your next high-stakes decision, starting with nine gates.

Subscribe to receive our evidence notes and decision briefings.

Double opt-in: we send one confirmation email first. Unsubscribe any time. We never share your address.

Score your decision →