On this page
Worked-example setupScope and assumptions
- North Inlet is original fiction and the packet contains no current legal advice or finding.
- The supplied reviewer knows only that one firm sells the HarborPass brand; buyer uses, alternatives, geography, entry, and contract constraints are initially missing.
- A structure conclusion and any legal conclusion require separate evidence and authority.
- Period
- Current fictional contracting season
- Units
- Qualitative market-definition and constraint evidence
- Rounding
- Exact binary evidence flags
North Inlet sells the only product branded HarborPass. A memo concludes: “North Inlet is a monopoly, can charge any price, and therefore violates antitrust law.” The brand count supports none of those three steps by itself.
Rebuild the market question
Ask what buyers use HarborPass to accomplish. Can they switch to another brand, a different technology, self-supply, delay, relocate, or change the transaction scope? Do those alternatives remain practical for the same customers, quality, location, and period? Cross-price and switching evidence can inform the answer, but one category label does not settle it.
Then investigate entry and expansion. Identify licensing, compatibility, distribution, data, capital, reputation, lead time, minimum scale, sunk commitment, and likely incumbent response. An announced entrant that cannot reach customers during the contracting season may not discipline current terms.
Map constraints even if one seller remains
A single seller still faces buyer willingness and ability to pay, substitution at higher prices, costs, capacity, durable-good resale, buyer power, regulation, contracts, reputational effects, and future entry. “Price maker” does not mean “price without consequences.”
Open a separate legal file
If the economic record supports monopoly or market power, the legal work still needs jurisdiction, current law, challenged conduct, effects, defenses, procedure, evidence, and authority. A historical case is context, not a current verdict. The revised memo should report supported market alternatives and constraints, missing evidence, and a separate legal research question.
Verified calculation · economics foundations analysis
The curriculum loader recomputed this example before it entered the site build. Expand any structured input to inspect the stated facts.
- claim audits
- 1 field
Inspect data
{
"single_brand_claim": {
"causal_design_supplied": 0,
"decision_authority_identified": 0,
"feasible_alternatives_compared": 0,
"model_assumptions_stated": 0,
"observation_supplied": 1,
"value_criterion_stated": 0
}
}Recomputed result
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| causal claim supported | 0 |
| descriptive claim supported | 1 |
| model implication supported | 0 |
| recommendation supported | 0 |
| unsupported causal jump | 1 |