compare-leniency-programs-across-three-jurisdictions

name	compare-leniency-programs-across-three-jurisdictions
task_id	antitrust-competition/compare-leniency-programs-across-three-jurisdictions
description	Closes gaps in cross-jurisdictional leniency comparison including limitations analysis, sequential-cooperation mechanics, individual applicant strategy, and sequencing recommendations for a board-ready memo.
activates_for	["planner","solver","checker"]

Skill: Multi-Jurisdiction Leniency Program Comparison

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the source set as a comparison exercise across three distinct leniency regimes unless the documents clearly collapse them into one program.
• If the materials cover more than one applicant, enforcement authority, or conduct thread, enumerate each jurisdiction and each applicant/participant before analyzing them.
• If financial exposure figures appear in the source set, verify them against the underlying math in the documents before using them in the memo; do not assume the stated totals are correct.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• The analysis stops at program descriptions and never converts them into filing-risk, protection, or sequencing consequences.
• The memo treats the regimes as interchangeable instead of testing first-in-line status, immunity versus reduction, cooperation burdens, and timing windows separately.
• The memo ignores how individual inclusion or exclusion changes coverage, credibility, and self-incrimination risk.
• The memo misses confidentiality conflicts where leniency cooperation collides with public-company disclosure duties.
• The memo fails to test whether the conduct is better framed as one cross-border scheme or separate local conspiracies, even though that framing changes filing scope and leverage.
• The memo repeats source calculations without checking arithmetic or reconciling inconsistent figures.
• The memo gives conclusions without tying them to the controlling legal rule for each jurisdiction.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Compare each jurisdiction using the same core variables: eligibility, protection available, first-applicant mechanics, cooperation obligations, cessation requirements, individual coverage, limitations period, and any marker or reservation process.
• For each regime, identify the controlling authority the source documents invoke, or the standard authority that governs the point, and state the proposition it supports before drawing the conclusion.
• Test whether immunity is automatic, discretionary, or unavailable; whether later applicants can obtain reduction; and whether the evidentiary threshold for any benefit is met.
• Test whether continuing-conduct principles, tolling, or other limitations doctrines alter the age of the conduct that can be included.
• Treat sequential-cooperation mechanisms as strategic tools, not assumptions: assess whether one filing can affect exposure, timing, or leverage in another jurisdiction.
• Treat confidentiality as legally relevant, not operationally incidental: analyze whether the cooperation package can be kept consistent with securities disclosure, exchange, or reporting obligations.
• Where individuals are implicated, analyze whether inclusion strengthens cooperation or unnecessarily broadens admissions and exposure.

4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Enumerate the jurisdictions and, within each, the applicant types or participant groups actually in scope.
2. For each jurisdiction, assess:
   • eligibility posture and first-in-line status,
   • form of protection available,
   • required cooperation and cessation steps,
   • treatment of individuals,
   • limitations or timing issues,
   • any marker, reservation, or sequencing mechanism.
3. For each issue, close the loop by stating:
   • the scale or magnitude drawn from the source record,
   • the related document, clause, notice, schedule, or factual thread that interacts with it,
   • the practical consequence for the client’s filing, exposure, or leverage.
4. Compare the regimes side-by-side and identify inconsistencies, such as different definitions of the relevant conduct, different cooperation thresholds, or mismatched timing assumptions.
5. Test whether the facts support one global cartel theory or multiple conspiracies, and explain how each characterization changes filing scope, cooperation obligations, and negotiating posture.
6. Verify every source financial figure and flag any arithmetic mismatch, unsupported assumption, or conflicting exposure estimate.
7. If confidentiality obligations and disclosure duties both apply, analyze the collision explicitly and state how it affects sequencing and internal approvals.
8. End with a sequencing recommendation that explains which filing should occur first, whether filings should be simultaneous or staged, and why that sequence best preserves protection across the regimes.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Handle jurisdictional differences vertically: a point that is favorable in one regime may be neutral or adverse in another, so do not aggregate until each regime has been analyzed on its own terms.
• Handle temporal issues explicitly: determine what conduct falls inside or outside each limitations window, then reassess if later conduct or continuing conduct changes the analysis.
• Handle applicant relationships explicitly: distinguish the company, current employees, former employees, and any other individuals whose inclusion or exclusion changes coverage.
• Handle document relationships explicitly: if a source document references another notice, timetable, or internal instruction, reconcile the interaction rather than quoting one in isolation.

6. Output structure conventions

• Begin with a board-ready executive summary that states the headline risk, the sequencing recommendation, and the main cross-jurisdictional tension.
• Use a comparison table with the same criteria across all three jurisdictions so the reader can see differences in protection, cooperation, individuals, and timing at a glance.
• Follow with issue-by-issue sections for individuals, timing, sequential-cooperation mechanics, single-scheme versus separate-conspiracy framing, confidentiality/disclosure tension, and any source-document inconsistencies.
• For each issue section, state the governing rule or authority, the source facts or figures that matter, the inconsistency or risk, and the downstream consequence.
• Include a verified financial exposure section if the source materials contain numbers; correct arithmetic where needed and flag any unsupported figure.
• End with a concise Recommended Actions block that gives imperative next steps, identifies the responsible role, and ties each step to a filing or disclosure milestone.