A use case here is a real matter with everything identifying removed. You get the sector, the stake, how the decision was framed, where the system disagreed and how that disagreement resolved. You do not get the organisation, and you will not be able to work it out.
The first set is in preparation. Nothing appears without the client's written approval, which is why this page fills slowly.
Either route commits capacity for a decade and sets a permanent relationship with the same competitors. The decomposition turned on which failure was recoverable.
Sunk development against a regulatory route that no longer had a sponsor. The disagreement inside the system was about what the withdrawal itself was evidence of.
Three routes, three different regulators, and a decision that could not be revisited once filed. Two routes graded identically until the evidence base separated them.
The exposure was disclosed. The question was whether it was contained, and the answer sat in what had not been disclosed anywhere.
Customer forecasts, order books and public capacity announcements pointed in different directions. The work was mostly about which signal deserved weight.
A build commits people the organisation did not yet have. A procurement commits to a supplier market that was consolidating while the decision was being made.
The bars above each matter are not decoration: they show how many routes were carried through the simulation, which one the recommendation landed on, and which were eliminated on evidence. Seventeen markets are in scope, and six are described in detail on Solutions.
The decisions brought to us are rarely ones anyone wants attributed. That constrains what we can publish, and we would rather state the constraint than write around it.
The organisation, its people, its counterparties, the geography beyond a region, the timing, and any figure that could identify it. Figures are omitted rather than rescaled, because a rescaled figure is still a claim.
How the matter was framed, how it was decomposed, what evidence was found and how it graded, where the system disagreed, and how that disagreement was resolved.
The client, in writing, on the final text. Not on a summary of it. If approval is withheld or withdrawn, the use case does not appear, and no explanation is published in its place.
Whether the client took the recommendation, and what happened next. That belongs to them, and outcome claims are the easiest thing on a site like this to dress up.
None of this makes a use case a case study. It is an account of how a decision was reached, published because the method is worth examining, not because the outcome flatters anyone.
Bring us a matter you are actually facing. We will tell you how it would be framed, what would count as an answer, and whether Quorum is the right instrument for it.