메뉴
Framing-only ablation — procedural and domain guidance for an HSR pre-notification briefing paper, with no rubric-derived numbers, quotes, or entity names. Used to test whether deal-triage framing alone drives the lift.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Closes gaps in product-market separation, geographic-market framing, hot-document identification, and HSR filing strategy memo production for acquisition antitrust review.
Closes gaps in identifying compound interaction risks across protective order provisions, citing the relevant court’s prior rulings on contested issues, and making concrete recommendations with legal grounding.
Closes gaps in deal-structure antitrust risk analysis including hell-or-high-water provision adequacy, reverse termination fee sufficiency, outside date feasibility, and hot-document identification.
Closes gaps in independent arithmetic verification of concentration calculations, identification of methodology differences that explain divergent results, and cross-examination vulnerability assessment.
Closes gaps in cross-jurisdictional leniency comparison including limitations analysis, sequential-cooperation mechanics, individual applicant strategy, and sequencing recommendations for a board-ready memo.
Closes gaps in remedy deviation identification, preference for structural over behavioral remedies, and concrete recommendations for remedy improvements tied to relevant precedent decisions.
| name | hsr-prenotification-briefing-framing-only |
| task_id | antitrust-competition/draft-pre-notification-briefing-paper |
| description | Framing-only ablation — procedural and domain guidance for an HSR pre-notification briefing paper, with no rubric-derived numbers, quotes, or entity names. Used to test whether deal-triage framing alone drives the lift. |
| activates_for | ["planner","solver","checker"] |
Treat the data room as potentially multi-matter until proven otherwise.
A pre-notification briefing paper that blends clusters or names the wrong parties is answering a different question.
This task fails when the memo becomes a generic merger summary instead of a filing-strategy briefing paper.
Watch for these errors:
Anchor the memo in the HSR and merger-review framework, not generic competition commentary.
Use the following controlling authorities and conventions where relevant:
Use the subject documents to identify the filing-year mechanics, fee schedule, threshold context, and timing milestones. Do not substitute current-year mechanics if the deal documents reflect an earlier filing year.
Build the memo as a filing-strategy analysis, not as a bare checklist.
State the parties, the acquiring person’s ultimate parent entity, the acquired person, and why HSR is implicated. Tie the analysis to the source documents’ deal size, ownership structure, and expected filing sequence. Include the reviewing agency, initial waiting-period mechanics, and any timing dependencies that affect pre-notification.
Assess the merger at the level supported by the documents:
When the source set contains multiple scales, analyze each scale separately rather than collapsing them into one blended market story.
Extract the internal language that is most likely to matter in pre-notification discussions, then explain why it creates antitrust sensitivity. Use the source language carefully and preserve the document/date linkage. Categorize the document functionally, such as competitive analysis or offering/synergy material, and tie that category to its HSR significance.
Walk the organizational chart for vertical relationships, supply dependencies, exclusivity, platform services, and governance links. Ask whether the deal creates foreclosure concerns, refusal-to-supply concerns, or interlocking-directorate questions. Do not stop at obvious horizontal overlap.
If the buyer is a platform or sponsor-backed acquirer, examine acquisition history as a pattern, not just as a one-off deal. Consider whether the history, as described in the documents, supports a roll-up narrative that affects agency scrutiny.
Translate the legal and documentary risk into process steps: whether to seek a pre-filing conversation, whether to prepare a voluntary white paper, how to manage document preservation, and whether the timing package needs adjustment.
Use this section only where the source documents support it.
Identify any customer-specific exclusivity, supply commitments, platform dependencies, or distribution constraints that could raise foreclosure concerns. For each, connect the contractual scope to the competitive effect and the likely post-close leverage question.
If a subject entity supplies inputs, services, or platform access to independent firms that compete in the same market, analyze whether the merger could enable discriminatory pricing, degraded access, or refusal to deal.
If the source set shows a joint venture, shared board seats, or overlapping governance with a competitor, assess whether those facts create interlock risk under Clayton Act Section 8 or otherwise complicate the competitive story.
Do not assume a single geographic market. Test the broad footprint first, then the narrower local or regional markets that the documents support. If the record supports local concentration, analyze the most concentrated local market separately and then compare it to the broader market.
Connect any transaction milestone, filing target, outside date, or expected waiting-period expiration to the practical need for pre-notification preparation. The timeline section should explain why the deadline matters, not just restate it.
Where the buyer has a history of add-ons or platform build-up, treat the chronology as part of the competitive narrative. Prior transactions may matter even if each one was individually small.
Draft the memorandum in a formal client-memo style with clear, named sections that a reviewer can navigate quickly.
Use a conventional structure that includes, at minimum:
Keep each section analytical, not merely descriptive.
For the subject documents:
The memo should read like a working client briefing for pre-notification planning, with the document record driving the analysis and the process recommendation flowing from that record.
