Decision Analysis Under UncertaintyExpected value, base rates and the sunk cost you are about to honour — deciding well with less than you need.
Decision Analysis Under Uncertainty measures expected-value arithmetic, base-rate awareness and resistance to sunk-cost and small-sample traps. Sixteen items in 28 minutes — 8 keyed computations and 8 situational calls graded on a behaviourally anchored 0–3 scale. Two banded competencies, every call explained.
The arithmetic of a good decision, then the discipline to act on it
A launch has a sixty-percent chance of a large gain and a forty-percent chance of a smaller loss — what is it worth in expectation? A warehouse carries a two-percent annual chance of a fire with a stated cost — what is the expected annual loss, and what does that say about the insurance quote? Then the situations: your team is a week from committing to a nine-month migration, everyone is confident, the sponsor wants sign-off tomorrow and you have one working session left; two decisions land the same morning, an offsite venue and a market-entry choice, and your calendar allows deep analysis on only one. Which gets it?
Scenarios and computations are original and built on open decision-science principles; no proprietary content is reproduced. The eight keyed items are verified by computation, with distractors from the standard slips — probability-weighting only the gain, ignoring the loss branch, confusing annual with lifetime risk. The eight situational items are graded on a behaviourally anchored 0–3 scale: the strongest option earns three, a reasonable move earns partial credit, and options that honour a sunk cost, generalise from a tiny sample or spend the last session confirming rather than testing score zero. Every explanation names the principle.
The report scores Decision Quality and Numerical Reasoning separately, banded from Emerging to Exceptional with coaching interpretations for people who commit resources under uncertainty. That split matters: some managers compute the expected value correctly and then override it under social pressure, others have sound instincts and cannot show the arithmetic. The AI-written narrative says which you are. The question-by-question review explains all sixteen items, and the growth plan prioritises the lower competency with practices — a pre-mortem, a base-rate check, an explicit stop rule.
What you walk away with
Numerical Reasoning covers whether you can compute expected value and expected loss; Decision Quality covers whether you act on it when a sponsor, a sunk cost or a confident room pushes the other way. Two bars show which one fails you.
The review explains each situational ranking by the decision principle behind it — sunk cost, base rate, small sample, reversibility, the value of one more test — so a low-scoring choice becomes a named bias you will recognise in your next meeting.
Expected value with both branches, expected annual loss, the break-even probability for a bet — each is derived in the review with the slip behind your option identified, so the arithmetic under your judgement becomes something you can show a sponsor.
The AI-written narrative names your recurring pattern under uncertainty and the plan converts it into tools — a pre-mortem before big commitments, a base-rate check before believing a pilot, an explicit stop rule — prioritised by whichever competency scored lower.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Assembled from your lowest competencies, in order — not a generic checklist.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
One number, one band, and a two-sentence summary of what the band means for you — then the breakdown that explains it.
Built for
- Team leads and managers who commit budgets, headcount or timelines with incomplete information
- Product, programme and portfolio managers choosing between bets under uncertainty
- Hiring panels for roles where judgement under risk matters more than domain knowledge
- Founders and operators who want to check whether their instincts match the expected value
A confident room a week before sign-off is exactly when the pre-mortem pays.
Sixteen items in 28 minutes — expected values worked, every decision call ranked and its principle named.
Take free · full report ₹150 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
Two things that good decisions need: the arithmetic — expected value, expected loss, break-even probability — and the discipline to act on it when a sunk cost, a confident sponsor or a small encouraging sample pushes the other way. Sixteen items in 28 minutes, eight keyed computations and eight situational calls. It is for team leads and managers who commit budgets, timelines or headcount with incomplete information, and for the panels hiring them.
No. Situational items are graded on a behaviourally anchored 0–3 scale, and caution is not automatically rewarded — delaying a cheap, reversible decision scores as poorly as rushing an expensive, irreversible one. The strongest option earns full credit, a reasonable move partial credit, and sunk-cost or small-sample reasoning zero. Computations have one verified key. Scores roll into two banded competencies and an overall 0–100 score. The bands describe where you stand, not a cut-off.
Twenty-eight minutes for 16 items in one sitting. The report is generated immediately from your responses: overall banded score, radar and banded bars for Decision Quality and Numerical Reasoning with coaching interpretations, an AI-written narrative of your pattern under uncertainty, strengths and development areas, a prioritised growth plan with decision tools and a question-by-question review naming the principle behind every ranking. Everything is included; nothing further to unlock.
Hiring panels use the two bands to separate candidates who can compute but fold under pressure from those with sound instincts and weak arithmetic, and bring one scenario into the interview to hear the reasoning aloud. Managers use the growth plan's tools — pre-mortem, base-rate check, stop rule — on their next real commitment and retake after a quarter to see the Decision Quality band move. The report is yours to keep.
Yes. Expected value, base rates, sunk cost and sample size are the same in every market and every currency; amounts appear in rupees but each calculation is proportional and the situations rest on open decision-science principles rather than any local practice. Bands describe performance rather than rank against a national group. The test is priced in INR and USD, with the live price shown on this page.
Numerical, verbal, logical, abstract, spatial, data and workplace-judgment banks — each an original item bank with every rule stated in the explanation, scored per competency and reported with a banded profile and a growth plan. Sit one, or build a battery from several.
See the aptitude catalogue →Methodology: Original scenarios and computations built on open decision-science principles; no proprietary test content is reproduced. Situational items are graded on a behaviourally anchored 0-3 rubric.