DCZion is a team decision-intelligence workspace. You define the alternatives and the criteria that matter, your team scores them independently and blind, and DCZion aggregates the inputs with range scoring, finds the Condorcet consensus winner, and stress-tests the result with a Monte Carlo simulation — so you commit to a decision with confidence instead of a gut feeling.

Click "New Decision" in the sidebar (or "Try it on a real decision" from the Learn page). You can start a solo decision immediately, or create your team first so its members become the default roster for team decisions. The wizard is five steps: who decides (solo or team) → pick a starting-point template, then name the decision and its options → set criteria priorities → rate each option → review, then save to invite your team or run the simulation.

No. Solo decisions are fully supported — you can score a decision yourself and still get the simulation, sensitivity analysis, and export features. Team features (blind scoring, rosters, disagreement diagnostics, participation links) unlock when you create a workspace and invite members.

Not yet — DCZion is in private beta. Access is limited to invited users (workspace members, pending invitees, and decision participants) plus the initial beta accounts. Registration stays open so anyone can create an account and request access; invite links and participate tokens let invited people in automatically.

Any decision that needs more than one person's judgment and has to stay defensible afterwards. The catalog covers hiring and promotion (final-round candidates, internal promotion, restructuring); performance evaluation and remuneration (quarterly and annual reviews, calibration across teams, raises and bonuses); OKRs and planning (prioritization, budget and headcount allocation, what to cut); strategy and direction (market entry, positioning, build versus buy, go / no-go); product and engineering (roadmap bets, architecture, migrations, technical debt); and operations, vendors and risk (procurement, tool selection, security and compliance sign-off, deal approvals). Every one of them runs the same engine: blind scoring, weighted criteria, pairwise comparison and a Monte Carlo simulation. The 15 built-in templates map onto these, and /use-cases has a worked example of each — inputs, result, and how the numbers produced it.

Yes. Every decision, workspace, and comment is protected by row-level security in the database — you can only see data for workspaces you belong to and decisions you own or participate in. Participants only see what the initiator chooses to share, and inputs stay hidden from other participants until scoring closes. See the schema and security model in the repo (supabase/schema.sql) for details.

In a team decision, each member scores the alternatives against the criteria on their own, without seeing anyone else's numbers. Nobody sees a teammate's inputs while scoring is open, and the aggregated team result is released only once the decision is frozen — which happens when every participant has fully scored every criterion (or, on a roster larger than 12, when the initiator force-freezes at 75% completion). This removes the affect asymmetry and groupthink that distort live team discussions — no dominant voice, no anchoring, no pressure to conform.

DCZion combines two methods. Each member scores alternatives on a range (0–100) per criterion, weighted by the criteria weights the team agreed on. Your scores are aggregated per criterion (means and distributions are preserved — never averaged away), a Condorcet comparison finds the alternative that beats every other one head-to-head, and a Monte Carlo simulation runs thousands of plausible score scenarios to show how stable the winner actually is.

Instead of treating each score as a single exact number, the simulation treats every input as a range of plausible values and re-runs the decision thousands of times. The result shows how often each alternative wins under realistic variation — a fragile 51/49 "winner" looks very different from a robust one that wins in 95% of runs. If your decision is fragile, the sensitivity panel shows which criteria and whose inputs move the result the most.

After scoring, the Disagreement tab quantifies how aligned your team actually is, per criterion: dispersion of scores, agreement percentage, and score spread. It exposes the factors your team truly disagrees on so you can discuss the real disagreements instead of everything — turning an abstract "we don't agree" into a specific, actionable list.

The results screen includes a behavioral cue based on team decision-making research: under time pressure, teams decide differently than when they can deliberate. DCZion flags whether your situation points to deciding fast or taking more time to deliberate, so the process fits the pressure you're actually under.

There are 15 built-in templates that pre-fill alternatives, criteria, and weights for common decision types (hiring, performance reviews, vendor selection, strategy, prioritization, and more). Pick one as a starting point and customize — the process stays auditable either way.

Go to Teams in the sidebar and create a workspace, then use the Invite page to add members by email. You can also share an invite key. When a decision is running, you add participants from your team roster or by email address, and each participant gets a link they can use to join and score.

Participants open the share link (or the participate page with their token). They sign in (or create an account — registration is open), see the decision's alternatives and criteria, and submit their scores independently. Their own ratings stay hidden from everyone else while scoring is open; once the decision is frozen the team result, simulation, and disagreement diagnostics are revealed.

They can create one on the spot — registration is always open. The invite or participate token is what grants them access, so the app brings them straight into the decision after they sign in.

Not by default: the rule is that priorities lock only once every participant has fully scored every criterion, so the result is always the whole team's rather than a snapshot of whoever answered first. Large groups get a release valve — a decision with more than 12 participants can be force-frozen once at least 75% of the roster has fully scored, so one straggler cannot hold up a big session. Either way the activity log and the decision journal record who had submitted, so the result is transparent about its own completeness.

Every decision keeps an audit journal of the steps taken: who set it up, which participants scored, when scoring closed, and the final result. It's the paper trail that makes a decision explainable after the fact.

Free ($0), four flat Team seat classes — Team 10 ($200/mo), Team 50 ($1,000/mo), Team 100 ($2,000/mo), and Team 250 ($5,000/mo), each 17% less billed annually — and Enterprise (custom pricing — contact sales). Every plan includes the full team decision service: blind scoring, rosters, disagreement diagnostics, all 15 templates, and PDF/JSON export. Plans differ on limits only: Free allows 10 solo decisions a month, 10 team decisions a month per workspace, 5 workspaces, and 5 seats per workspace; every Team class raises the two decision pools to 100 and the seat cap to 10 / 50 / 100 / 250 depending on the class. Workspaces follow the seats above the smallest class — Team 50 gives you 50 workspaces, Team 100 gives 100, and Team 250 gives 250 — while Team 10 keeps 15.

Two separate pools, ten each per calendar month. Solo decisions: 10 per account per month. Team decisions: 10 per workspace per month, shared by everyone in that workspace — three members in one free workspace make 10 team decisions between them, not 30. Decisions are what get counted, never people: a team decision with five participants is one decision. The counters reset on the 1st of each month (UTC), so unused allowance doesn't carry over.

The next attempt to create a decision is blocked with a clear message showing your usage (e.g. "10/10") and telling you it resets on the 1st. Nothing is deleted and existing decisions are never affected — only new creations are limited, and drafts you are still writing never count against the pool. Any Team seat class raises the pool to 100.

No — your history is yours, permanently. Every saved decision, and every in-progress draft autosaved to your account as you work, stays in your account no matter what happens to your plan. Cancelling, downgrading, or marking a decision cancelled never deletes or locks anything; plans only ever cap creating new decisions, never access to the ones you have already made. Your audit trail survives — that is the point of keeping a decision record.

Free accounts can create up to 5 workspaces with 5 team seats each; Team accounts get 15 workspaces on Team 10 and one workspace per seat on the bigger classes (50, 100, or 250), with 10 / 50 / 100 / 250 seats per workspace depending on the seat class they pick. A seat is an accepted member — a pending invite uses none, and it cannot be accepted once every seat is taken. The class is flat: you pay it whether the workspace holds 3 people or the full allowance, and members joining later never change the bill. Workspace and seat usage is enforced server-side, and your workspace list shows where you stand.

Payments are being wired up now. When billing goes live you'll pick a seat class (10, 50, 100, or 250 seats per workspace) on the pricing page and pay monthly or annually (17% off). Until then the full Team experience is available free, and we'll let existing users know before anything changes.

On the server. A decision is counted when it is created for input, and again when a draft is opened for input — that second check is where a draft actually costs its slot, so work in progress never blocks you. Every route that opens a draft charges there, including the run button (which opens a draft before it simulates). Solo decisions are counted per account, team decisions per workspace. A full pool returns a 403 with your usage in the message. The count fails open, so a quota-tracking hiccup can never lock you out.

Yes. Every decision screen can export the full record — alternatives, criteria, weights, all scores, the simulation, and the result — as a PDF report or as structured JSON. PDF export is available on every plan.

The PDF mirrors the results screen: the summary and recommended alternative, the Condorcet/Monte Carlo outcome, per-criterion breakdowns, the disagreement diagnostics, and the decision journal. It's designed to be attached to meeting notes, proposals, or your own audit trail.

Yes — PDF/JSON export plus an org-level audit log are included with the Team plan, so larger organizations can track decision activity across workspaces.

Data lives in your Supabase-backed project and is kept until you delete it. Deleting a workspace or decision removes it from the app; the schema's foreign keys clean up dependent rows (participants, inputs, comments).

Email us at hello@dczion.com. Since the app is in active development, bug reports and feature requests are genuinely appreciated — and the Learn page documents the research behind each feature so you can also understand the "why" yourself.

The Learn page in the sidebar covers the research DCZion is built on — affect asymmetry and process norms, shared mental models, and organizational decision frameworks — with a source library of the underlying papers. The About page explains why Condorcet and Monte Carlo are the right tools for team decisions.