The moderation team’s processes emphasise keeping details of moderation discussions private with the individuals concerned (whether reporters or reportees), including where relevant between moderation members. Moderation gets involved when things are most heated, and it’s exceedingly rare that everyone (or anyone) leaves happy. The idea is that this helps avoid shame, minimises fear of reprisals (again against any party), facilitates frank discussions, and generally is the most constructive way to support a healthy community.
That’s a choice of policy and values, made deliberately (and, fwiw, before the formation of the SC). It’s one reason why adding other governance groups for topics without this focus is welcome. Other policy choices can be discussed and much background has been written elsewhere. That’s not the discussion we had with the SC (or less and less so as time went on).
There’s a policy and mechanism for transparent discussion of decisions with third parties. SC knows about it; SC explicitly asked us to enforce it more stringently. SC never once used it.