This isn't a new demo format—it follows the existing public case validation process. Data comes from Accenture's official public case; we first isolate the later-stage answers,

then reconstruct what was knowable at the point of decision into a teaching data package. Minerva Advisor completed one paid live run; this video is a replay validation of an actual Decision Room, and does not represent

Accenture's

endorsement, nor real customer results.

The case begins with an almond cooperative of over 3,000 growers, whose move from raw material supply into consumer packaged goods increased supply chain complexity, with fragmented spreadsheets hampering forecasting. Minerva

did not directly choose a platform, but instead compared immediate global integration against a time-boxed, stoppable supply-demand data and forecasting evidence baseline.

This live run drew on one source, identified four roles, separated six facts, two inferences, and three items pending confirmation, compared two actionable paths, and preserved three alternative explanations and one reversal condition.

Executives can verify root causes, data ownership, and integration boundaries, rather than relying solely on platform slogans.

What's known: business transformation has increased supply chain complexity, and fragmented spreadsheets hamper forecasting. What's unknown: whether inaccuracy stems from data definitions, source quality, planning frequency, methodology, systems, or ownership,

and what data the raw material and consumer product businesses should share. Minerva did not treat the system symptom as the platform answer.

The system preserves the strongest counterargument: fragmented spreadsheets may in fact already be the primary systemic root cause; if the evidence baseline lacks stop conditions, partial fixes could indefinitely delay integration. If the root cause is confirmed as a systemic breakdown,

and both the shared data scope and ownership accountability are clear, then the reversal is to proceed with global integration.

Executives can expand four teaching-simulation messages. Accenture's later-stage SAP integration planning solution, virtual training, daily planning during the pandemic, and scenario services, along with forecast accuracy improvements,

were not included in the decision inputs. Minerva did not have prior knowledge of the official solution or attribute the outcome to itself.

Marcus frames the real decision as whether to first pinpoint the root cause or first commit to a platform; Sofia simulates second-order consequences for supply-demand, commercial, grower, and investment committee stakeholders; Evelyn challenges whether the evidence baseline is merely delay.

All three converge on a time-limited, stoppable supply-demand evidence baseline.

Evelyn points out that if the fragmented spreadsheets do in fact reflect a cross-business systemic issue, building only a baseline with partial fixes could let customer-response costs keep accumulating. Executives must simultaneously define a diagnostic deadline,

an expansion threshold,

and what systemic evidence would be sufficient to reverse immediately.

The executive adds: first distinguish root causes among data, process, forecasting method, and ownership; if the next supply-demand window arrives before the evidence gate expires, launch a scope-limited parallel integration. The system logs a response receipt,

maintaining the direction of building the evidence baseline first while strengthening the window-based reversal condition.

Immediate global integration can accelerate cross-business visibility, but risks locking incorrect data boundaries and ownership assumptions into a multi-year architecture. A supply-demand evidence baseline can first pinpoint the root cause and confirm the initial scope,

at the cost of continuing to bear the fragmentation short-term. The executive chooses the second path while retaining the parallel-integration reversal signal.

Finally, the supply-demand planning and data team will complete, within three weeks, root-cause diagnosis, shared data boundaries, ownership inventory, and stop or expand thresholds. What Minerva tracks is auditable action,

not a claim that a platform has been selected or forecasting outcomes have occurred.

This Accenture case passed ten decision-quality checks. The existing Decision Room's first-pass path used four model calls, completing the primary judgment and cross-checking by three advisors in 43.442 seconds,

under the sixty-second case threshold. Decision quality, customer experience, and performance status all passed; but this remains a single case test, not equivalent to production-environment service levels or real customer outcomes.