This is not a new demonstration format. It is a replay of an existing public case validation process, built entirely from Marsh's official public case study. We isolated the later-stage answers first, then reconstructed only what was knowable at the decision point into a training data package. This is an independent teaching simulation, not real correspondence, not a real client result, and not a Marsh endorsement, review, sponsorship, certification, or commission of Minerva Advisor.

The case opens with a global pharmaceutical company facing single-sourced components, non-substitutable suppliers, and Tier 3 geographic concentration, all against limited upstream visibility across a multi-tier supply network. Minerva Advisor weighed two paths: move immediately to full multi-sourcing across the network, or first time-box the mapping of a defined set of critical products while concurrently protecting the known high-risk single points.

Minerva's work receipt has five parts. One official public source was used. Four roles were identified in the analysis. Facts were separated from inferences and from open items. Two response paths were compared side by side. And three alternative explanations, plus one reversal condition, were preserved and carried forward into the final judgment for executive review.

What was known: single-sourcing, bottlenecks, non-substitutable suppliers, and Tier 3 geographic concentration could threaten product continuity. What remained unknown: the actual number of bottlenecks, whether any were dual bottlenecks, hidden Tier 3 sites, geographic clustering, and the substitution, qualification, inventory, and regulatory timelines for each critical product.

The strongest challenge Minerva preserved: mapping and protection efforts may compete for the same limited resources, qualification timelines could run longer than the mapping window, and the true bottleneck might sit entirely outside the defined mapping scope. The reversal condition is explicit. If mapping confirms a dual bottleneck or a shared geographic single point of failure, or if a known single point shows an active quality or supply failure signal, the recommendation flips toward accelerated multi-sourcing and immediate protection.

Marsh's later Sentrisk network and geospatial analysis was deliberately held out of this run. That published answer found roughly eighty-two network risks and dual-bottleneck dependencies, eight critical Tier 3 sites within fifty kilometers of Bremen, Germany, and enabled targeted mitigation and resilience planning. None of that downstream evidence was fed into Minerva's decision-point judgment.

Three simulated advisors cross-checked the same judgment. Marcus focused on which products and single points needed protection first. Sofia modeled the supply, quality and regulatory, and patient-product consequences. Evelyn challenged whether mapping itself would delay action. All three converged: time-boxed mapping and single-point protection should proceed in parallel, not in sequence.

Evelyn added a sharper point: if a known single point requires a long qualification verification process, waiting for a complete multi-tier map before acting is actually the riskier choice. The executive responded by adding a condition: confirm the critical product list and mapping deadline, and assign inventory, alternate-supplier, quality, and escalation owners for every known single point, with immediate reversal if patient or quality risk crosses threshold. This response is preserved in the system's response receipt.

Minerva then compared the two paths directly. Immediate full multi-sourcing could reduce some single-point risks quickly, but risks trading them for new qualification and quality problems. Time-boxed mapping directs resources toward confirmed bottlenecks first, at the cost of leaving some unmapped dependencies temporarily exposed. This comparison is where executive input actually moves the judgment, showing whether the added condition changes the outcome rather than simply restating it.

The executive committed to the mapping path, run in parallel with protection of known single points. As next action, supply continuity, quality and regulatory, and product teams are directed to define the critical product mapping scope, the known single-point list, inventory and substitution timelines, and explicit thresholds for suspending or expanding the mitigation effort, ahead of the next committee meeting.

This run used four model calls. The first decision was delivered in nineteen point zero four eight seconds, and the complete result finished in twenty-seven point four two five seconds, passing both the thirty-second first-decision threshold and the forty-five-second complete-result threshold. All ten out of ten decision quality checks passed. This remains a single-case test result, not a production service level and not a real customer outcome, and it is not medical, supply chain, or insurance advice.