Evaluate enforcement with outcome evidence

Keep complaints, decisions, remedies, and monitoring records procedurally distinct, then fund later measurement of prices, entry, quality, choice, and innovation.

Source records14report custody

Linked markets8analytical context

Research themes4publication taxonomy

Evidence needs5future verification inputs

Recommendation evidence chain

The source boundary stays visible from analysis to proposed action.

01Published analysisAR-SC-2026-01The U.S. Competition Landscape

02Evidence custody14 sources / 8 marketsLinked context, not independent endorsement

03Normative recommendationAR-PA-004Outcome evaluation

04Implementation evidenceNot assessedNo adoption or impact inference

Source report position

The U.S. Competition Landscape

National competition policy needs a shared evidence infrastructure that preserves market definition, geography, vintage, and procedural posture instead of compressing unlike signals into one score.

Intended audience: FTC, DOJ, Congress, state attorneys general, and public data agencies
Policy priority: Near-term
Instrument: Outcome evaluation
Publication: AR-SC-2026-01 / version 1.0
Canonical citation: Antitrust Radar Research Team. (2026, July 19). The U.S. Competition Landscape: State of Competition 2026: five evidence systems, no single score. State of Competition, AR-SC-2026-01 (Version 1.0). Antitrust Radar. https://antitrustradar.org/reports/us-competition-landscape-2026

Evidence still needed

Inputs required to investigate the recommendation and its effects.

01Stable cross-agency market identifiers
02Firm-level shares and residual-category rules
03Comparable local ownership and control records
04Merger notification and review outcome tables
05Post-remedy competition outcome measures