Agreed that is simple... but... it is also contradictory... or at least still confusing. If a touch is all that's needed, then "control" loses all its meaning.
My feeling is that this cannot be the intent of laws. It is poorly worded and needs a bigger fix.
Is a goalkeeper whose outstretched finger tips are feathering a ball on the ground in control of the ball? No, surely not.
When the GK punches a high ball, at the moment of contact with the ball, is the goalkeeper in control of the ball? No, surely not.
In these cases and others, the GK does not have the ball under control but is touching it. Surely an attacker is allowed to play the ball here simultaneously without committing an offence?
I'll think one aim of the law is to protect the players. if at he moment of contact by the attacker the GK still has contact with the ball with any part of the arms or hands then an offense has been committed