If that's the case, I think the easiest thing to do would be to transcribe the document and include annotations inline about where content was omitted. e.g. Go

If that's the case, I think the easiest thing to do would be to transcribe the document and include annotations inline about where content was omitted. e.g. Go from "XXXX people connected with.." to "[REDACTED] people connected with". So long as it's noted that redaction happened and one doesn't have the source document to glean things from, that would probably be sufficient to block the things the author of this article is doing. What I'm wondering, though, is if this is permissible. Being able to see how much of a document was redacted gives us some important context: 1. We know we're looking at the "original" report. This might not be the case with an approved transcription of some sort. 2. It's easy for a layman to get a sense of how much information is being withheld. Knowing what and how much was redacted seems like it's pretty important for maintaining trust and transparency with an organization that has legitimate reasons to withhold some amount of information.