Reading merger decisions without drowning in footnotes

Start with the theory of harm the authority actually tests, not the press summary. Map the candidate market and the evidence types the decision treats as persuasive — often demand estimates, internal documents, and switching data in digital cases. Second pass: note what is explicitly left open or sent to remedies. Many digital decisions spend pages on market definition and then narrow remedies; your memo should flag uncertainty rather than implying false precision. Third pass: extract operational implications — what data your team would need to argue a similar or opposing position in a different jurisdiction. Close with three questions for counsel, not answers you cannot support. This method is a reading discipline, not legal advice. Pair it with primary sources and your organization's review process.