Mike raised the possibility of adding the word unredacted.
This word is listed in Wiktionary and in Dictionary.com at the end of the entry for redacted. The fact that a lot of dictionaries don't have it yet doesn't concern me, as it's only recently been used fairly often. And in any case it's an obvious derivation, with an obvious meaning.
The question is, though, should it be treated as common, and permitted to be used as a seed word for a 10-letter puzzle? If not, we won't actually be seeing the word, because the only other word made up of those letters, underacted, is classed as rare, and the word has 8 different letters, so can't come up in a 7-by-many.
I wish there were some simple way of quantifying the commonness of a word. The iWeb corpus has unredacted as number 52627 in its list of words ranked by frequency of use in the internet. This might seem to make it fairly common, but I find that other words with a similar ranking include some quite obscure terms, like bronchoconstriction, hilar and turbinate, along with some rather more common words, like backflip and complacently.
The News on the Web corpus has quite a few examples from recent years, but only a fraction as many as redacted. On the 15th of June alone, three publications used the word.
However, I don't feel the word has been in general use for long enough to be treated as common just yet. So I will add it as a rare word, and maybe in a while it could be reclassified and installed as a seed word.
