Apparently this less-redacted version was issued November 3. I'm guessing it might have had more discussion if the timing had been different.

As to reading for whether Mueller did a good job or not, I've always assumed that no matter who did the job, and no matter what they tried, it was an uphill battle and my main point is not to read in order to make criticisms of them. I just want a sense of what actually happened in 2016 and whether there's information in there that would point to reasonable people seeing about removing the President from Office or censuring him.

[cnn.com]

I still want to know what is in there. As far as I know, there was never valid legal justification for burying so much of report from decent robust public view, and now that Trump is gone, the shedding of light on more of the report is part of restoring and fixing what we taxpayers should be getting (in my view). Maybe this has been discussed within the Biden admin and they are waiting until after the trial. Or maybe they're just not going to fight for it. I don't know. I can make the argument for delaying the revelations until after the Trial, and I can make the argument for not paying attention to the Trial, and just doing the right thing (what a concept). I cannot make the argument for sitting on what is really in there for very long, if it is in the legal power of the Biden Administration to take the locks off of the salient portions.

Good question.

I also have hope that we get to see more after that redaction gets another look. This might not happen, though, because Biden doesn't want to look back too hard. He doesn't want to create another tit-for-tat but I have doubts that's avoidable.

I surely want to read all redacted parts of the report.