I suspect there is quite a lot of semantics going on here, on both sides.
Robertson didn’t say he didn’t know why they paper hadn’t been distributed. He said “you’d need to ask the SFA and SPFL”. Which, given the working body falls under their auspices would be the right and proper thing to do, unless SR had been nominated as a spokesman.
The SFA then pick up on that and call it an inaccuracy, which it’s not. They also then say that the group ”unanimously” agreed not to publish the document and then point out that Robertson was a member of the group. They are implying that he was in favour of withholding the document, but that’s not necessarily the case. If he is in the room arguing for it to be released immediately and every other member is saying no, then the decision of the group is to withhold. And SR will have seen the futility in forcing a vote, on which he would be the only dissenter. But that’s not to say he agreed with the outcome, which is the implication they are drawing.
Frankly, it seems Stewart Robertson would have been better simply saying “the biggest frustration is that’s the document hasn’t been distributed to the clubs. The working group collectively decided to withhold it until the end of the season, so we are waiting until then”. It appears he’s given that his choice of words has allowed them to pick on a minor point in order to avoid addressing the bigger picture.