This is the same verification process, not a new demonstration format. The case material comes from The Poirier Group's official public case study. We isolate the later-stage answers and rebuild only what was knowable at the decision point into a teaching dataset. This is an independent teaching simulation based on a public source, not real correspondence, and not real client results. The Poirier Group did not use, review, endorse, sponsor, certify, or commission Minerva Advisor.

The case opens with a private equity owned manufacturer of CD and DVD duplication equipment, facing a major paradigm shift in consumer electronics. The core business is declining but still has value, and investors need an exit. The question is whether to harvest and sell immediately, or first validate a reinvention path in adjacent markets through time boxed experiments with funding thresholds.

This run produces an auditable work receipt built from five items: the source used, the roles identified, the facts separated from inferences, the open questions retained, and the alternative explanations kept in view. Executives can trace exactly what evidence and reasoning steps produced the judgment.

What is known: the core duplication market is declining but still generates cash, and the company's technology and talent may extend into adjacent markets. What remains unknown: the exact decline rate, how much cash the core business can still contribute, customer demand and channels in adjacent markets, funding requirements, and how buyers would value each path.

The strongest challenge: core cash may decline faster than the experiment timeline allows, and private equity's patience for delay may already be limited. Optimism about adjacent markets could reflect capability bias rather than real market signal. The reversal condition: if a five-year enterprise value comparison shows harvest now dominates under plausible decline rates, the recommendation reverses to sell immediately.

The published case's later-stage answer was deliberately excluded from the input. The Poirier Group's internal assessment, management interviews, workshops, the five year plus franchise value scenario, adjacent market migration plan, and the eventual sale to a larger market participant were all held out, so the system's judgment could be tested independently of the known outcome.

Three advisors cross-check the same judgment. One frames which adjacent hypotheses are worth testing with core cash. A second models investor, commercial, and financial consequences. A third challenges whether the experiment would exhaust the exit window. All three converge on a time boxed, funding capped adjacent market experiment, while flagging that an unknown decline rate could erode value before evidence arrives.

The executive response sets one condition: first lock in the minimum protected core cash and the sale window, then set funding caps for the adjacent experiment, along with customer payment, channel, and unit economics thresholds that trigger an automatic stop if exceeded, all within one week. This shows whether executive input changes the judgment or only tightens its guardrails.

Immediate harvest and sale protects existing value but forgoes any unvalidated adjacent upside. The time boxed experiment preserves reinvention potential, at the cost of drawing down core cash and possibly missing the exit window. The comparison makes explicit what each path trades away, so the executive is choosing between two named risks rather than a single default.

The executive commits to the second path, but only after locking in funding caps and stop loss conditions first. Strategy, finance, and commercial teams are directed to establish, within one week, core cash protection, experiment funding caps, customer and channel evidence requirements, unit economics thresholds, and the exact conditions under which the company reverses to sell.

This run used four model calls. The first decision was ready in 18.980 seconds, and the complete result finished in 27.107 seconds, passing the 30 second first decision threshold and the 45 second complete result threshold. Decision quality checks passed ten out of ten. This remains a single case test of Minerva's capability, not investment advice, and not equivalent to production level service standards or real customer outcomes.