Right, but the government has indicated that that's precisely what they did. There was no requirement, given the Barlow motion on February 5. There was no requirement for them to provide those documents to you, or else the third paragraph wouldn't exist at all.
If they followed the parameters of the House motion, then they've met the terms of the motion. Would you say that it's fair to say that there's nothing in this motion that says, basically, that there's an arbiter of the parameters? The parameters are set in the House motion. This clearly sets out that you don't have to receive them in advance, or else why would there be a clause taking that into account?
If the government says they did the proper redactions based on that, then they've complied with the motion.