I think it’s fairly strongly implied, particularly due to the fact that nobody would let her have possession of the written feedback. It sounds to me like there

I think it’s fairly strongly implied, particularly due to the fact that nobody would let her have possession of the written feedback. It sounds to me like there was concern that if she was provided with the written feedback she would be able to de-blind the reviewers via close analysis of the writing itself. Why else would management refuse to share the written feedback, considering that (a) they were willing to share the content, just not the specific writing itself and (b) the feedback doesn’t seem to have been in and of itself particularly noteworthy? My take is that the reviewers wanted to be able to express some mundane criticisms about the quality of the work without having to expose their identity to a person with a public reputation of unusual hostility.