provide ACLU with an unredacted copy of AR 6-9. We must, and we do, bring this sixyear quest for transparency to an end. The order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Chief Justice Todd and Justices Donohue and Dougherty join the opinion. Justice Mundy files a dissenting opinion in which Justice Brobson joins. discretion pursuant to the text and structure of the RTKL in Bowling II,” and it submits that “the proper course of action would be to remand to the Commonwealth Court to make a final determination based upon the record as it currently exists.” Dissenting Op. at 7. The fact that the Commonwealth Court already has concluded that the Burig Affidavit is insufficient to justify PSP’s redactions fatally undermines both points. Whether a record is exempt from disclosure is indeed a factual question, see id. at 5 (quoting Bowling II, 75 A.3d at 476), but in light of the Commonwealth Court’s opinion in PSP III, it is no longer an outstanding factual question. Furthermore, the Dissent’s proposed course of action is perplexing because the Commonwealth Court has already made its determination “based upon the record as it currently exists.” Id. at 7 n.7. Relatedly, while the remand in Bowling II was not “at the behest of a party,” id., the critical distinction remains that no court in that case had explicitly determined that the agency’s proffered justification for redaction was insufficient. [J-3-2023] - 16