exemption split between the 2 parts of section 36 under consideration. The document (940) records the conclusion that:“Considering the factors for and against disclosure in the public interest and their respective weights, it is clear that the public interest factors for non-disclosure have a greater weight than those pro-disclosure.” 157. This conclusion was explained as follows (940/941):- “It is also noted how much information has already been made public, the additional details proposed also to be made public and their value and relevance, both to the requester, and more widely. It is also clear how much relevant and valuable detail would be disclosed, compared to those proposed to be withheld. It is not considered that the redacted sections that fall within the S36(2)(b)(ii) or the S36(2)(c) exemption(s) would add anything further of significance to the public interest. Furthermore, it is noted that the vast majority of redactions have been applied as a result of S40 and S41 exemptions, and not S36(2)(b)(ii) or S36(2)(c). The former are absolute exemptions and are not subject to the public interest test and so the majority of redacted material would not be made available in any event. The nature of the anticipated harms from disclosure of relevant, redacted material, the severity of that harm and its likelihood of arising (as explained in the annexed qualified person’s opinion) mean that, from the very limited value of additional disclosure, it would be very likely that there would be significant harms and negative consequences. The University has been very careful to balance these considerations with the public interest in the outcome of the investigation. In doing so, the University has been very open and transparent about the investigation and its outcome. The published report contains extensive material assessing against the legal framework the events that took place at the University. The incremental benefits that might result from greater disclosure are, indeed, small because the public can gain insight into the arguments, legal analysis, recommendations for action, and their rationale, from the redacted, public version of the report” 158. We reviewed the Report and the Table to see where and how UoE had relied on section 36. A noteworthy example is the part of the Report where only section 36 was deployed at para 102 of the Report (E518). It is fully redacted on the basis of section 36(2)(c) FOIA namely that the QPO’s opinion is that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of the conduct of public affairs. In the Table it is said by UoE that:- 46