This is an independent teaching simulation built on Minerva Advisor's existing verification process for public case studies; it is not a new demonstration format, and no case-specific product mode has been added. The material comes from FTI Consulting's official public case study, but the presentation you're about to see is not real correspondence and does not reflect real client results. FTI Consulting has not used, reviewed, endorsed, sponsored, certified, or commissioned Minerva Advisor in any way. Before analysis begins, we isolate the answer that the article later reveals, then reconstruct only the information that was actually knowable at the moment of decision, turning it into a teaching data package for a single verified Decision Room run.

The case opens with a capital-intensive French telecommunications company under severe liquidity pressure. Capital expenditure demands and recent changes to the financing structure have combined to make the short-term cash position and the coming weeks' funding gap unreliable. Rather than adopting the funding approach the official case later describes, Minerva framed the real decision facing management: impose a full spending freeze immediately, or first establish a short-duration, revocable authorization mechanism limited to essential commitments.

This live run produced five distinct work items, each leaving an auditable receipt. One public source was selected and locked in. Three advisor roles were identified for the case. Five known facts, two reasoned inferences, and three unresolved unknowns were separated out. Two executable paths were compared side by side. And three alternative explanations, along with one reversal condition, were preserved for executive review. Every step can be checked item by item rather than taken on faith from a summary.

What was known: liquidity pressure was severe, book cash figures could not be treated as usable funds, and an immediate full freeze could disrupt essential operations. What remained genuinely unknown was the credible size of the cash gap, which commitments would become irreversible once halted, and the constraints imposed by existing financing contracts. Minerva did not claim to know the precise cash runway, and it did not dress up any unknown as a settled fact.

The strongest internal challenge came from advisor Evelyn: the list of essential commitments did not yet exist. Authorizing spending into that information vacuum risked creating new advance-payment or contractual obligations, producing a fresh irreversibility problem rather than solving the original one. The reversal condition was set accordingly: if item-level triage cannot reliably classify commitments as essential versus deferrable, the mechanism reverts to a full freeze until that classification is verified.

The 13-week cash flow model, the daily treasury file, two-week cash visibility, the accounts payable rules by supplier type, and the redesigned cash allocation process, all of which FTI Consulting only describes later in the public case, were deliberately withheld from the decision inputs. This confirms Minerva reasoned through the liquidity decision without access to the published solution, rather than reconstructing its judgment after the fact.

Minerva's team split the same judgment into three independent checks. Marcus defined the actual decision facing the company. Sofia modeled the operational, financial, and risk-control consequences of each path. Evelyn specifically tested whether the proposed authorization mechanism was genuinely revocable. Their shared conclusion was not unconditional approval to spend, but a requirement to tie essential commitments, evidence deadlines, and stop conditions together before any authorization proceeds.

In the interactive replay, the executive responded by requiring that the essential-commitment list, contractual constraints, accountable owners, and stop conditions be established item by item first. Any item that cannot be verified blocks authorization and triggers immediate escalation. The system recorded this as an answer receipt, showing that the executive's condition upheld the original judgment rather than changing it. This step reflects the executive operating the replay, not the model generating a new answer.

A full freeze stops outflows immediately but risks disrupting service continuity, and partial halts are difficult to reverse once made. A short-term essential-commitment authorization preserves operational flexibility and buys time to gather evidence, at the cost of requiring immediate, item-by-item review and ongoing monitoring. The executive chose the short-term path, but bounded it strictly within conditions that are verifiable, stoppable, and escalatable.

The executive committed to handing the essential-commitment list, available cash evidence, and contractual constraints to the Group CFO's office, to be completed before the next funding-approval meeting. The Decision Room now awaits those execution results. Minerva provides judgment and a tracking mechanism, but it does not sign off on the executive's behalf, and it does not claim a liquidity improvement that has not yet occurred.

This FTI Consulting case passed all ten out of ten decision-quality checks. The run used four model calls, delivered the first decision in 15.835 seconds, and completed the full result in 23.663 seconds, passing both the 30-second first-decision threshold and the 45-second complete-result threshold. Decision quality, user experience, and performance all passed. This remains a single case test, not a claim of production-environment service levels or real client outcomes.