Or the conclusion?

(I will also point out you did some creative snipping in your excerpt from the first few pages...)

From the conclusion:

We also note that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ unilateral actions in editing or downgrading press releases or denying media access on a known controversial topic—and doing so without collaborating with the submitting scientists (as then required by NASA policy)—minimizes, in our view, the persuasive weight of their arguments as to volume or quality as the cause. Moreover, their failure to adhere to a prescribed process—where the goal was transparency and “consensus”—resulted in complaints, negative media attention, Congressional oversight, and, ultimately, this investigation.

The actions of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs also had an impact on many levels of Agency operations. News releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution. Some scientists claimed to have self-censored; others simply gave up. Worse, trust was lost, at least temporarily, between an Agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves. Congressional relations, at least at the staff level, were also strained. Finally, these allegations proved to be an unnecessary but significant distraction to an Agency that was otherwise fully engaged in other areas of science, exploration, aeronautics, and space operations, each with its own breathless operational pace, in which safety was paramount. Certainly, all those actions and effects were inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Space Act and other NASA regulations requiring the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA’s activities and research, especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest. In sum, when it pertains to dissemination of the Nation’s hard science, none of this course of conduct was in the public’s best interest. Furthermore, to the extent that these allegations transpired for more than 1 year, the Agency as a whole (particularly the Science Mission Directorate and the Office of Public Affairs) bears responsibility for not appropriately elevating these matters to senior management for resolution.

(bold emphasis mine)

More on the examples of what they did in another post....