This is an independent teaching simulation built on Deloitte's official public case study, not real client correspondence and not real client results. Deloitte did not use, review, endorse, sponsor, certify, or commission this analysis. The verification method is unchanged from prior runs: the later-stage answers published in the case were isolated first, then everything knowable at the moment of decision was reconstructed into a teaching data package for Minerva Advisor to work from.

The surface question asks whether a global multi-brand company should centralize its support operations. Minerva reframed it as a bounded, reversible four-week decision: either pilot a more centralized, clearly accountable model in one cross-brand support process, or stay decentralized and fix only the clearest instances of duplication and bottlenecks, watching for signals on whether to continue, adjust, or withdraw.

This run left five work receipts an executive can audit line by line: one locked source document, four defined roles, a split of six established facts, two inferences, and three open questions, a two-option comparison, and a final check of counter-evidence against reversal conditions. Nothing here is a polished summary; every step is traceable.

What is known: revenue grew while profitability lagged peers, spending relative to revenue kept worsening, and decision-making was too slow to track market shifts. The inference is that lagging profit could reflect market pressure, raw material costs, or the operating model, alone or combined. What remains genuinely unknown: which process carries the most duplication, what four-week quantitative thresholds should apply, and which local decisions must stay decentralized. Minerva does not convert these unknowns into assumed facts.

The strongest challenge: if the pilot process, its thresholds, and its untouchable local exceptions are not defined before starting, a positive result after four weeks could simply mean the easiest process was chosen, not that centralization works. The reversal condition follows directly: if the pilot cannot separate operating-model effects from external cost pressures or unresolved causal ambiguity, run the decentralized fix-instance option in parallel rather than committing further.

The case's later published findings, the ten-week diagnosis that named the decentralized model as the cause, the ten-month global operating-model transformation, and the sixteen percent stock rise after the plan was announced, were all withheld from the input. Minerva reached its recommendation without seeing how the real case actually resolved, so the judgment reflects genuine reasoning under uncertainty, not hindsight.

Three advisors then cross-check the same judgment from different angles. Marcus defines exactly what decision is being made. Sofia simulates the roles involved and traces systemic consequences. Evelyn stress-tests the evidence and any commitments being proposed. Together they converge not on immediate full-scale centralization, but on preserving room for disagreement: first set attributable, reversible pilot conditions before scaling anything.

In the live session, the executive added one condition: define concrete metrics for cycle time, spending reduction, and service quality before proceeding. The system logged this as a new input, and the underlying judgment held: still a small, reversible single-process pilot, now with quantitative signals defined up front. This step shows what changes and what does not when real executive judgment enters the room.

The executive then compared two paths. Centralizing one process first gives a direct read on cost and decision speed, but requires building a measurement baseline before results mean anything. Staying decentralized and fixing only clear bottlenecks avoids adding new delay, but produces no direct evidence that centralization itself would help. Each option is shown with what it gains, what it costs, and whether it can be reversed.

The executive committed to the four-week reversible pilot on a single cross-brand process and assigned the next move to Finance and the Transformation Office: identify the highest-impact duplication or bottleneck instance within one week to select the pilot process. The Decision Room now waits for execution results, with the reporting channel left open rather than closed.

This case passed ten out of ten decision-quality checks using four model calls. The first decision was delivered in 17.305 seconds and the complete result, including the three-advisor cross-check, finished in 25.703 seconds, passing both the 30-second first-decision threshold and the 45-second complete-result threshold. This remains a single case test; it does not represent production-level service or real client outcomes.