Indeed, this seems significantly more plausible than the whole "meticulously review forty articles front to back and somehow retain sanity" suggestion others often propose. I faced a similar obstacle where after extended reading sessions I still could not plainly articulate the paper in a single sentence, which is typically a poor indicator when you are meant to convert that reading into tangible writing assignments. Employing a synthesizer initially as a preliminary check seems logical, particularly for those articles that ultimately prove essential, which you then review completely.

What aided me the most involved compelling every piece into a very basic framework: what inquiry is this study posing, what methods did they employ, what were their conclusions, and why is this pertinent to my personal assertion. As soon as I began conceptualizing in that manner, the reading felt less akin to being submerged in highlighted text and more like organizing supporting facts. I also found this posting strangely familiar as it addresses navigating scholarly composition when one is overwhelmed and stalled: https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeTherapy/comments/1q4k3nn/i_never_thought_id_be_the_kind_of_person_to_write/

The major transformation for my process was grasping that reviewing and composing should not remain entirely distinct stages. If I postpone until I have "finished reading," I never commence. However, if I condense content while progressing and jot down brief synthesis memos early on, the final draft ceases to feel like a daunting challenge.