The $500K McKinsey Report vs. The $49 Board Fight

McKinsey gives you 200 pages of frameworks. We made 4 AIs fight until one answer survived. The furniture shop owner who listened to us is still in business.

The consulting firm’s report began: “After extensive stakeholder analysis and value chain optimization across multiple strategic dimensions…”

Our verdict: “Fire your brother-in-law by Friday. He’s costing you $80K/year.”

One costs $500,000 and takes six months. The other costs $49 and takes 15 minutes.

Guess which one actually saves businesses.

The Consensus Trap

Ask ChatGPT for business advice and you’ll get this:

“When considering this strategic decision, it’s important to evaluate multiple factors. First, assess your risk tolerance and long-term objectives. Consider conducting a SWOT analysis while engaging stakeholders across various departments. Review market conditions, competitive positioning, and resource allocation. Additionally, examine customer sentiment, operational capabilities, and financial projections. Remember to account for potential synergies, implementation challenges, and change management requirements…”

Fifteen paragraphs. Zero decisions.

That’s not strategy. That’s procrastination dressed in business school vocabulary.

We do something different. We make four AI advisors fight:

Round 1 - Opening Positions: Everyone states their take. No hedging. Round 2 - The Chair Attacks: Every weakness gets exposed. “That’s not strategy, it’s wishful thinking.” Round 3 - Defense or Death: Weak ideas die. Strong ones evolve. Round 4 - The Verdict: One clear path with exact steps.

Truth emerges from conflict, not consensus.

An HVAC company came to us about expansion. The Growth Champion wanted new markets. Operations wanted to consolidate. Contrarian suggested franchising. Everyone had compelling arguments.

Then the Chair asked: “What about your brother-in-law in the warehouse?”

Silence.

Turns out the real problem wasn’t market size. It was $80K in dead weight they were too nice to cut. The verdict: “Fire him first, then reassess.”

They did. Freed up capital. Stayed local. Grew 35% without expanding anywhere.

The Fight That Saved a Business

A furniture workshop. Seven years old. Their master craftsman just quit to join a competitor. Major retailer offering $500K/year contract for simplified designs. Pregnant owner with twins on the way. $120K in the bank.

Traditional consultant approach: Six months of analysis, 200-page report, five strategic options with probability matrices.

Our approach: Four AIs fought for 15 minutes.

Round 1: Opening Positions

Growth Champion: “Take the retailer deal. $500K guaranteed revenue. Stability for your family.”

Operations Expert: “Impossible. You need $175K in equipment, new space, complete retraining. You’ll burn through cash before shipping anything.”

Contrarian: “Both wrong. Go fully digital. License designs, abandon the workshop.”

Chair: “Let’s get specific. Your real problem isn’t the craftsman leaving…”

Round 2: The Chair Attacks

To Growth: “You’re suggesting they become a factory. That’s not a pivot, it’s an identity crisis. Show me the math on year two when the retailer squeezes margins.”

To Operations: “You’re so focused on problems you’re missing the opportunity. Those two young craftsmen aren’t liabilities—they’re untapped potential.”

To Contrarian: “Digital licensing with zero IP protection? With a retailer deal expiring in two weeks? That’s not innovative, it’s delusional.”

Round 3: Defense or Death

The digital pivot died fast. Our simulation: 73% chance of bankruptcy within 18 months.

The “hire another master craftsman” option crumbled. Market rate was $80K, they’d need to pay $160K, with six-month recruitment time and zero guarantee of culture fit.

What survived: A modified retailer deal with critical adjustments.

Round 4: The Verdict

“Take the retailer deal, but not as a pivot—as a foundation. Make your two young craftsmen partners with 2% equity each. They become Production Heads, not employees. Use the retailer contract to secure a $175K equipment loan. Pause your premium line for 12 months—tell the waitlist the truth. Most will wait.”

The sequence:

• Week 1: Accept deal with three non-negotiables (10% advance, 18-month price lock, right to limited premium production)
• Week 2: Make craftsmen equity partners
• Month 2: Set up production systems
• Month 6: Launch “Founders Reserve” premium line (12 pieces/year)
• Month 12: Add second B2B client

Outcome: They took it. First-year revenue: $480K (96% of projection). Retained both craftsmen. Reopened premium line in month 13 with 60% of original waitlist still waiting. Business still operating, now with three B2B clients.

Why Conflict Beats Consensus

Different AI models have different biases. ChatGPT hedges. Claude analyzes. Gemini systematizes. Llama challenges.

When they fight, weak logic dies.

A restaurant group debating delivery apps:

• Growth: “30% of revenue through apps!”
• Operations: “They take 30% commission.”
• Contrarian: “Build your own app.”
• Chair: “You barely break even on delivery. Why are we discussing growing something unprofitable?”

Final verdict: Kill delivery. Focus on dine-in experience. Revenue dropped 15% initially, profit increased 40%.

A retailer considering Amazon:

• Growth: “Massive reach!”
• Operations: “Logistics nightmare.”
• Contrarian: “Amazon will copy your bestsellers.”
• Chair: “Your customers buy because you’re NOT Amazon. Why become what they’re avoiding?”

Verdict: Stay off Amazon. Build email list. Customer lifetime value increased 3x.

A service business debating remote work:

• Growth: “Access global talent!”
• Operations: “Coordination complexity.”
• Contrarian: “Go fully remote, save office costs.”
• Chair: “Your competitive advantage is local relationships. How does remote help that?”

Verdict: Hybrid model. Key staff in-office three days. Saved 40% on real estate, kept local presence.

The pattern: The obvious answer is often wrong. Conflict reveals why.

The Math Behind the Fight

Traditional consultants say: “The NPV is negative with 15% discount rate assuming normalized EBITDA multiples.”

We say: “You’ll go broke in 6 months.”

Same math. Different language.

For the furniture workshop, here’s how we presented the analysis:

Digital Pivot Scenario:

• Not: “High variance in projected cash flows”
• But: “73% chance of bankruptcy in 18 months”

Retailer Deal Without Changes:

• Not: “Operational leverage concerns in Year 2”
• But: “When they cut prices 30% next year, you’re instantly unprofitable”

Hiring Master Craftsman:

• Not: “Human capital risk concentration”
• But: “You’re recreating the exact problem that just killed you”

We ran 10,000 simulations. The modified retailer deal with craftsmen as partners succeeded in 89% of scenarios. Everything else failed more than half the time.

The Brutal Truth About Decisions

Most businesses don’t need more analysis. They need someone to cut through the bullshit and tell them what to do.

• The HVAC company knew the brother-in-law was a problem. They needed permission to act.
• The furniture workshop knew digital was risky. They needed validation to take the safer path.
• The restaurant knew delivery was killing margins. They needed courage to cut it.

We don’t build consensus. We find truth through conflict.

Four AI advisors enter. One answer exits.

No hedging. No frameworks. No 200-page PDFs.

Just a clear verdict with specific actions and deadlines.

When You Actually Need This

You don’t need a board fight for every decision. You need it for the ones that matter:

Perfect for:

• Bet-the-company decisions
• When everyone agrees (red flag)
• Analysis paralysis lasting weeks
• Choosing between real options with real tradeoffs
• When you need permission to do what you already know

Wrong for:

• Daily operations
• Clear-cut situations
• When you need deep technical analysis
• Legal or compliance issues
• When you haven’t defined the problem yet

The $500K Question

A Fortune 500 company pays McKinsey $500,000 for six months of analysis that concludes “it depends.”

A furniture workshop pays us $49 for 15 minutes of AI conflict that says “take the deal, make them partners, start Monday.”

One company is still debating. One is shipping products.

The difference isn’t the quality of analysis. It’s the willingness to make a call.

We make calls. Clear ones. With math to back them up.

Because your business doesn’t have six months to figure out what to do.

And your twins definitely don’t.

Based on real AI board fights with real outcomes. Not every verdict works—but indecision always fails. Get your board fight at surmado.com/solutions.