put any of the sources in danger (security assessment) or enable their identification (confidentiality). The name of X should not be shared, however, if the quantity of information on hand does not cross the “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold. The investigative body could also share its understanding of the facts as reasonably believed, again without revealing sources. It should avoid providing facts that are in essence conclusions as to responsibility.162 Also shareable is the information from the one interviewee who gave consent (b), as well as the two open sources (a).163 Compare “Person X was seen at the location” (fact) versus “Person X is the primary hostage taker” (conclusion). Clearly the “do no harm” principle would preclude sharing even this information if there are concerns for the security of sources that could not be mitigated. 162 163 94 ATTRIBUTING INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY