The happy-path syntax is pretty straightforward. I wonder if you're under the impression like some that you need to use the arrow syntax or prefixing dollar for every reference, and not just the first? That's not the case. e.g.

    my @a = (
      { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["y"] },
      { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["z"] },
    );

    say $a[0]{first}; # Outputs 1
    say $a[1]{another_ref}[0]; # Outputs z
    
    my $a2 = \@a; # top level is a reference too now
    say $a2->[1]{another_ref}[0]; # Outputs 1, arrow only needed at top level
    
    # The following are alternate syntax that I find unnecessary and better left alone (and most do)
    say $a2->[1]->{another_ref}->[0]; # Outputs 1, explicit, entirely unneeded because it's unambiguous without extra arrows
    say $$a2[1]{another_ref}[0]; # Outputs 1, extra prefixing $ dereferences first level ref

Personally, I'm happy with a single arrow that lets me know if I have a reference or not. References are important, because they denote that this data may be accessed elsewhere as well, so I'm happy to have a small reminder. Inner level references needing a bit of care if they are copied is somewhat normal though, most non-toy languages have some concept of deep or shallow copying.