This is not a new demonstration format. It is the existing public-case validation process for Minerva Advisor. Working from an Infosys official public case, we first isolate the later-stage published outcome, then reconstruct only what was knowable at decision time into a training data pack. This is an independent teaching simulation based on an official public source. It is not real correspondence, and it does not represent real client results. Infosys has not used, reviewed, endorsed, sponsored, certified, or commissioned this analysis.

The case opens with a large retail company that had run Lawson enterprise resource planning software for nearly twenty years, alongside IBM TM1 Cognos planning software for over a decade. These deeply embedded legacy platforms limited agility, relied on static processes, and constrained the finance team's ability to deliver actionable insight. The company needed to deliver value within an aggressive nine to twelve month timeline while managing change across business stakeholders. The decision: pursue a single full replacement of both platforms, or first establish time-bound, stoppable evidence gates for process, data, and adoption before committing to full-scale migration.

This live run anchored on a single public source and left an auditable five-item work receipt. It identified four roles and four events inside the case. It separated five confirmed facts from two inferences and three open questions. It compared two competing paths for sequencing the migration. It preserved three alternative explanations rather than collapsing to one story. And it set one explicit reversal condition that tells the decision owner exactly when to change course.

What was known at decision time: the age of both platforms, the agility constraints they created, and the nine to twelve month deadline. What remained unknown: how much of the constraint stems from technology, data, process, controls, skills, or governance; which integration dependencies were about to become irreversible; and what minimum viable value, disruption tolerance, and cost of delay actually looked like for this company.

The system preserved its strongest counter-view rather than hiding it. If the primary constraint is concentrated heavily in the technology layer, phased governance overhead would actually slow a replacement the company urgently needs, and the nine to twelve month deadline itself signals a high cost of delay. The reversal condition follows directly: if the technology share of the constraint is confirmed high, if dependencies can be safely decoupled, and if phasing would forfeit real value, the recommendation reverses to accelerate a full replacement instead.

Infosys's later-stage details were held out of the input entirely: the choice of Oracle enterprise resource planning and Oracle Enterprise Performance Management software, the phased and inclusive transformation strategy actually used, the finance operations redesign, and the published outcomes in transparency, insight, adoption, and alignment. Minerva had no prior knowledge of the product selected or the transformation approach Infosys ultimately took. Those facts stayed isolated so the recommendation could be tested against a real, unseen published answer.

Three advisors then cross-checked the same judgment from different angles. Marcus framed the real decision as sequencing irreversible commitments within a fixed deadline. Sofia modeled the consequences for finance transformation, planning controls, business change, and the steering committee. Evelyn challenged whether phasing underestimates the true cost of delay. All three converged on the same core response: diagnose root causes and use stoppable migration gates rather than committing to a single irreversible replacement.

The executive response required that root-cause proportions, minimum viable value, and irreversible dependencies be verifiable within a short window, or the decision would escalate for a direct call. The committee chair added one instruction: flag irreversible dependencies and minimum viable value within the nine to twelve month window, and if evidence gates start eroding that critical timeline, reverse immediately to accelerate the validated scope. The system logged a response receipt. The original judgment stood, now with an explicit deadline safeguard attached.

A full replacement would deliver a unified platform fastest, but with root causes and dependencies still unclear, it risks locking in unvalidated process and adoption assumptions. Phased evidence gates sequence the migration in waves, preserving the ability to stop if evidence turns unfavorable, at the cost of added governance and time overhead. The steering committee chair chose the phased-gate path, while keeping the acceleration exit open if the reversal condition is met.

The committed action: the finance modernization and business change team charters a first evidence gate to diagnose root-cause proportions, inventory irreversible dependencies, define minimum viable value, and set first-wave stop conditions, all within three weeks, before any replacement-scope commitment is made. Minerva makes no claim that a product has been selected, that finance operations have been redesigned, or that any transformation outcome has occurred. Those remain Infosys's held-out, later-disclosed results, not evidence this evaluation produced.

This case used four model calls. Minerva delivered its first decision in 18.042 seconds and completed the full result in 25.075 seconds, passing both the 30-second first-decision threshold and the 45-second complete-result threshold. It passed ten out of ten decision-quality checks. This remains a single case test of the product's evaluation methodology. It does not represent production service levels, and it does not represent real customer outcomes.