Well, I wanted to read it. Silly me for thinking I would learn something new about the book from it. Glossing the same words--mind, connections, relation--at each use seems unnecessary to me, but maybe that's the nature of the annotated beast and not something I might hold against David Shapard. What I may* hold against him are the apostrophes in his decades ("1790's"), his plurals ("the Philips's party"), the size of the print, and, much worse, one unfounded assumption about Darcy's motivation and, less harmful but stupider, at least one utter blindness to the given text.
Just after Col. Fitzwilliam tells Elizabeth about Darcy's interference in Bingley's suit of Jane, Elizabeth decides that Darcy "had been partly governed by this worst kind of pride, and partly by the wish of retaining Mr. Bingley for his sister." Shapard asserts that "Elizabeth's final point is correct, though Darcy himself will never admit it, even after he reforms" (p. 343). And later, on p. 471, contemplating reasons for Darcy not to have brought Georgiana with him to Netherfield, Shapard says maybe Darcy didn't because such a visit would have interrupted her education, but "one could argue that this is one of the rare occasions when Jane Austen sacrifices...plausibility of behavior to the needs of the plot": Darcy had more reason to bring her with him, Shapard asserts, because he would want after Ramsgate to keep her with him and to promote a Bingley-Georgiana marriage.
Up on my hind feet now, I say no way. Wickham at 15 through elopement would have been a terrible situation, but anyone else at age 16 through procurement would not be much better. I am sure Darcy still considers her too young to form a permanent attachment. Furthermore, I believe he told the full truth in his letter to Elizabeth, that he discouraged Bingley because of the Bennets' situation and because Jane's heart was, he believed, not easily touched. The only textual evidence is Caroline Bingley writing to Jane of her and Louisa's hope that Georgiana might one day be their sister, and I don't call that evidence of Darcy's similar hope but of the Bingley females trying to separate their brother from Jane.
The utter blindness to the text occurs with Mr. Collins's last letter to Mr. Bennet, warning Elizabeth away from Darcy. After relating the chief ("the greater part," as Shapard believes his readers need be told repeatedly) of it, Mr. Bennet continues, "The rest of his letter is only about his dear Charlotte's situation, and his expectation of a young olive-branch." Shapard notes the biblical source "olive-branch" to mean offspring (Psalm 128:3) and that "such an allusion, one both pedantic and biblical, is appropriate for Mr. Collins."
That's one of the funniest things Mr. Bennet says but Shapard doesn't even notice. I aver that Mr. Collins didn't write "olive branch" at all, but instead that Mr. Bennet summarizes the letter thus because it mocks both Mr. Collins in his first letter (his "offered olive branch" of accord and peace between himself and the Bennets) and Mary's tedious observation ("the idea of the olive branch perhaps is not wholly new, yet I think it is well expressed").
* "permit myself to," not "possibly," speaking of glossing.