Most bad decisions are not caused by a lack of intelligence. They come from messy information. Too much of it. Poorly organized. Hard to follow. When people cannot see what matters, they default to guesswork.
Jason Sheasby has spent years working in environments where decisions carry real consequences. As a partner at Irell & Manella LLP, he handles complex technology trials involving patents, contracts, and high financial stakes. He has taken more than ten of these cases to trial in a short period and won them. His edge is not just legal skill. It is how he structures information so that juries can actually decide.
“In one trial, we had weeks of testimony about memory systems,” he said. “If we walked jurors through everything, we would lose them. We reduced it to three questions they needed to answer. Everything else supported those.”
That approach applies far beyond a courtroom.
Why Structure Matters More Than Volume
The average person is exposed to massive amounts of information every day. Studies suggest people consume the equivalent of tens of gigabytes of information daily. At the same time, cognitive science shows working memory can only handle about 4 to 7 pieces of information at once.
This mismatch creates friction. More input does not improve decisions. It slows them down.
Research from McKinsey has also found that employees spend nearly 20% of their workweek searching for information. That is not thinking time. That is sorting time.
“The biggest problem is not missing data,” Sheasby said. “It’s that the important data is buried.”
Start With the Decision, Not the Data
Most people begin by gathering information. That feels productive. It is often backward.
Start with the decision itself. What needs to be decided? What outcome matters?
In trial work, this step is non-negotiable. If the decision is unclear, everything else becomes noise.
“In the Netlist case against Samsung, we started with the decision the jury had to make about the agreement. Once that was clear, the rest fell into place.”
Limit Inputs to What Moves the Outcome
Not all information is equal. Some inputs change the decision. Most do not.
The goal is not completeness. It is relevance.
A common mistake is treating every detail as important. That creates overload. It also creates false signals.
In one case involving USB charger patents, his team cut large sections of technical material that did not affect the core issue. The result was a clearer argument and a stronger outcome.
“We asked one question: Does this change the decision? If not, it stays out.”
Group Information Into Simple Buckets
Once you have the right inputs, organize them into a small number of categories. Three to five is the ideal range.
This aligns with how people process information. Too many categories create confusion. Too few create oversimplification.
In trials, these buckets often become the themes of the case. Each piece of evidence supports one of them.
“We usually build around three themes,” he said. “If we need more than that, it means we have not done the work yet.”
Sequence Matters As Much As Content
Even well-structured information can fail if the order is wrong.
People understand information in sequence. They need context before detail. They need cause before effect.
Research in behavioral science shows that the order of information can significantly influence decisions, even when the content is identical.
In courtroom settings, this is obvious. The first few minutes shape how everything else is interpreted.
“In one re-triall, we changed the order of our opening,” he said. “Same facts. Different sequence. The reaction was completely different.”
Use Constraints to Improve Clarity
Constraints force better decisions. They reduce clutter.
Time limits. Word limits. Slide limits. These are not restrictions. They are tools.
In high-stakes trials, time is always limited. That forces teams to prioritize.
“You cannot say everything,” he said. “That is the point. You have to decide what matters.”
Test for Understanding, Not Completeness
The final test is not whether you included everything. It is whether someone else can understand it.
In trials, this is tested constantly. If a juror cannot follow the argument, the work fails.
One method is simple. Explain the information to someone outside your field. If they struggle, the structure needs work.
“We sometimes explain cases to people with no technical background,” he said. “If they cannot track it, we know we have a problem.”
The Role of Tools and Technology
Tools can help, but they do not solve the problem.
Surveys show that over 70% of professionals now use AI-assisted tools. The most effective use cases involve organizing and filtering information, not making final decisions.
Technology can surface patterns. It cannot decide what matters.
“Tools are useful when they narrow the field,” he said. “If they add more noise, they make the problem worse.”
The Bottom Line
Better decisions do not require more information. They require better structure.
Start with the decision. Decide what inputs are critical. Group clearly. Sequence properly. Test for understanding.
Peyman Khosravani is a seasoned expert in blockchain, digital transformation, and emerging technologies, with a strong focus on innovation in finance, business, and marketing. With a robust background in blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi), Peyman has successfully guided global organizations in refining digital strategies and optimizing data-driven decision-making. His work emphasizes leveraging technology for societal impact, focusing on fairness, justice, and transparency. A passionate advocate for the transformative power of digital tools, Peyman’s expertise spans across helping startups and established businesses navigate digital landscapes, drive growth, and stay ahead of industry trends. His insights into analytics and communication empower companies to effectively connect with customers and harness data to fuel their success in an ever-evolving digital world.
