141. We agree with the DN (A6) that the information provided to the VC/OP to assist in the consideration of the QPO:“...included: a description of the requested information; confirmation that the withheld information was shown to the QP along with a very detailed ‘exemptions grid’ which explained the proposed exemptions and the rationale for applying them; and comprehensive arguments as to why the envisioned prejudice would or would be likely to occur if the withheld information were to be disclosed.” 142. We also agree with the highlighting of these points by the IC that (A6):- “When invited to take part in the review participants were assured that their contribution to the review would remain confidential and disclosure of input from/about review participants without their consent may trigger a wave of complaints and disruption for the University, which it would have to manage. The report covered matters of extreme sensitivity which, in the wider world, are highly contested. The University took care to create an environment of trust where all views could be heard in relation to the associated review. This trust would be severely impacted should the redacted parts of the report be released. Disclosing additional text may bring safeguarding concerns. Disclosure would hinder the provision of a safe space for the University community to take forward the actions that followed the report. [The Commissioner considers this argument is of more relevance to the exemptions under section 36(2)(b).]” 143. We also agree with the DN when it says (A6):- “The Commissioner is satisfied that the QP had sufficient appropriate information about the request and the section 36(2)(c) exemption in order to form an opinion on the matter of whether reliance on that exemption with regard to the requested information was appropriate.” 144. We agree with the submission made by UoE in submissions (page 18 para 44) that “The Vice-Chancellor’s opinion is careful, moderate and appropriately detailed.” 145. We have seen the QPO and the various relevant documents in section G of the Bundle. We had regard to the evidence on how the process of obtaining the QPO was dealt with at UoE (from 1000). 146. In our view the QPO was reached on the basis of a considerable level (and in our view more than sufficient level) of detailed information thought and analysis. Having considered the submission of the parties and the evidence and the relevant legal authorities our conclusion is that the QPO was reached 40