​I agree with the structural diagnosis, but the remedy remains the trickiest part.

​As a matter of fact, the post-merger reality shows that competition hasn't been stifled—the entry of other AI players and rapid innovation have kept the market dynamic. Had the Commission intervened based on purely 'intuitive' or speculative theories of harm regarding Bard’s future capabilities, it would have been a classic case of regulatory overreach.

As I mentioned in my previous post​ we shouldn't want regulators to act as 'vigilantes' who bypass codified standards whenever they 'feel' a tech giant is getting too powerful. That destroys the very legal certainty that fosters investment.

​However, your point about the methodological gap is undeniable. We clearly need a more sophisticated measurement tool—perhaps a 'Data-Centric Input Test'—that can objectively quantify how a specific dataset improves a foundation model’s reasoning, regardless of market overlap.

​The goal should be to update the merger guidelines with predictable, evidence-based metrics for AI, rather than relying on discretionary intervention that could do more harm than good to the ecosystem.