Six products, one common backbone. Each tool diagnoses a specific unit of analysis — individual, team, IC, board, or whole organisation — and produces findings that can be acted on in the next meeting, the next deliberation, or the next hundred days.
How your organisation actually makes decisions — read from the documents you already produce.
Organisations leave two recoverable residues in their decision artefacts. A cognitive residue — the orientations, attention patterns, and closure dynamics visible in how documents are framed. And a process-burden residue — the cycle time, documentation depth, approval layers, and rework the decisions actually consumed.
The fit between them reveals the quality of organisational judgment. Most existing tools measure neither. No existing tool measures their fit.
Cycle Time Index. Process Load Index. Documentation Burden Ratio. Reopen Rate. Closure Clarity Score. Framing Breadth Score. Contestation Quality Index. Learning Loop Score. And the flagship: the Decision Proportionality Score, which measures the fit between process burden and decision stakes.
What gets noticed and through which lens
Who is heard and how disagreement is handled
How decisions actually close and whether they stay closed
What counts as a legitimate basis for commitment
Whether the burden fits the stakes of the decision
Eight to twelve weeks. Board packs, minutes, committee papers, executive deliberation. Buyer: board chair or company secretary.
Six to ten weeks. Strategy memos, IC papers, quarterly reviews. Buyer: chief strategy officer or chief of staff.
Three deployment modes: diligence, hundred-day diagnosis, portfolio-wide benchmarking. Buyer: PE partners and portfolio ops.
What your board is collectively equipped to see — and, more importantly, what it is structurally equipped to miss.
Boards are composed for skills and independence. They are not composed for perceptual range. Two boards with identical skills matrices can exhibit very different collective orientations, and the orientation profile determines what the board can see before analysis begins.
The Board Perceptual Coverage Audit maps the collective orientation architecture of a board, identifies the Perceptual Bandwidth Index, the Collective Exclusion Zone, and surfaces the categories of strategic evidence that the board's current composition is structurally equipped to underweight.
Fortress. Defensive, control-oriented, high cohesion. Strong on downside risk, weak on novel opportunity.
Conviction. High-confidence, narrow interpretive range. Moves fast, misses what the conviction excludes.
Reactive. Dominated by the last crisis. Can see what just hurt them, cannot see what is coming.
Consensus. Surface alignment masks genuine diversity. The classic Consensus Theatre pattern at board level.
Confidential individual director profiles. The Board Perceptual Coverage Report. Standing governance practices including the Perceptual Bandwidth Review and the Collective Coherence Pause. Optional Succession Orientation Brief for nomination committees.
Buyer: Board chair, lead independent director, company secretary, nomination committee, or governance advisory firm.
How your leadership team's collective orientation architecture shapes what it sees, what it misses, and how it fights.
Executive teams are selected for performance and cultural fit. They are rarely selected for cognitive diversity in the specific sense that matters for strategic judgment: whether the team's collective orientation profile provides enough interpretive range to see the strategic landscape the firm actually faces.
The CXO Team Diagnostic produces a team-level orientation map. It identifies the dominant orientations, the exclusion zone, the friction points between team members with incompatible profiles, and the specific decisions where the team's collective architecture is likely to produce blind spots.
A team-level heatmap showing each member's orientation profile and the aggregate pattern. A team archetype identification (the executive team version of the archetype framework). A friction map showing where team disagreements are substantive and where they are artefacts of orientation mismatch. A set of targeted interventions for team redesign or deliberation practice.
Buyer: CEO, chief of staff, or the leadership team itself commissioning its own diagnosis.
How your deal team converts uncertainty into commitment — and where that conversion fails.
Private equity general partners, venture capital firms, corporate development teams, sovereign investment arms, family offices, and any organisation whose competitive advantage depends on the quality of investment decisions made under genuine uncertainty.
Investment decisions are a particularly clear proving ground for the framework. The stakes are visible, the outcomes are measurable, and the decision process leaves a rich documentary trail (IC memos, deal reviews, post-investment monitoring) that supports the full diagnostic pipeline.
Diligence mode. A focused engagement during the diligence window, producing a management decision capability profile for the IC alongside the traditional commercial and financial diligence.
Hundred-day mode. Deployed in the first hundred days of ownership, using the pre-close document corpus to identify the specific decision-process interventions that will have the largest impact on value creation.
Portfolio mode. Programmatic deployment across the portfolio, producing comparable decision capability profiles that identify which portfolio companies are operating well and which need intervention.
The entry point to the framework. A structured development programme that produces a personalised Strategic Judgment Profile for every participant.
Every participant completes a comprehensive online assessment before the workshop — an orientation inventory, a set of implicit association tests, and a structured vignette-based judgment exercise. The workshop itself uses their own data to surface their characteristic orientation, their attentional pattern, their closure tendency, and their likely blind spots.
Each participant leaves with a printed Strategic Judgment Profile: a personal reference document showing where their guidance system is calibrated, what it foregrounds, and what it systematically filters out.
The SJM is also the empirical backbone of the PhD research programme. Every participant contributes to the anonymised research corpus under explicit consent, and the aggregated findings feed directly into the academic papers that validate the framework.
For executives, this creates an unusual value proposition: participation in a workshop that is simultaneously a development experience and a contribution to a published research programme they can cite.
Format: Half-day to full-day workshops for cohorts of 15 to 25 participants. Delivered in-person or as a structured virtual equivalent.