What Type Of Information About Stakeholders Is Not Included In A Stakeholder Register?

Reading Miha Lenic's article "Leveraging Your Stakeholder Register" https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles...holder-Register it reminded me that there is a problem with the Stakeholder Register that most authors shy away from because of its ethical implications of sharing it or not with others! I started a conversation there (https://www.projectmanagement.com/discussion-topic/86699/Stakeholder-Register---how-much-you-share-and-how-much-you-dont-?pageNum=&sort=desc) but I'd like to expand the discussion outside the project managers community and understand the perspective from people that act as sponsors or stakeholders in projects.

I think that everyone agrees that the Stakeholder Register (as any other planning document) has only as much value as the completeness and correctness of the information included. As a consultant I've seen hundreds of Stakeholder Registers, but I still have to see one that is shared with the entire team and has an accurate description of a negative stakeholder in it! Everybody records positive or at most neutral statements in the Register because that person may see those comments - and nobody wants to be called in an executive's office to hear "How come I'm a blocker to your project?" or "Do I look like a Dangerous stakeholder to you? Don't answer that if you want to keep your job!"

So, if one doesn't accurately record columns such as "influence", "impact", "interest" or "involvement" for the negative stakeholders, is it worth bothering at all with the Stakeholder Register? We all know that the problems come from negative stakeholders, not from the supportive ones.... and for small projects it may be reasonable to keep that information in mind, but for tens or hundreds of stakeholders it is not feasible...

Many project managers end up keeping 2 registers, one shared and one for private use, that expands the shared register with the typical "4 your Is" columns that they actually need (see above). Now, ethical purists are criticizing this approach indicating that it is unethical because the project manager is hiding information, while supporters of this approach argue that the PM's (personal) assessment about someone is in fact private information and does not qualify under the "need to know" criteria for information distribution.

Moreover, it's commonly accepted that the project manager's main responsibility is to successfully complete the project and deliver the expected results. Wouldn't that imply the project manager has the authority and even obligation to make judgement calls regarding to what he/she thinks it would help or impact the successful delivery? And one of these decisions would be about the potential implications of sharing or not his/her thoughts about various people involved with the project in one way or another?

To add gas to the fire, following this line of thought about potentially having to withhold information to increase the chances of successful delivery, how can the ethical obligations of "duty to get the job done" and "duty to not hide information" can be reconciled? For example, here are some principles from the Project Management Institute (PMI) Code of Ethics (mandatory for all PMI members and all PMP certified practitioners):

2.2.3 We fulfill the commitments that we undertake – we do what we say we will do.
5.2.4 We make commitments and promises, implied or explicit, in good faith.
5.3.1 We do not engage in or condone behavior that is designed to deceive others, including but not limited to, making misleading or false statements, stating half-truths, providing information out of context or withholding information that, if known, would render our statements as misleading or incomplete.

(the PMI code of Ethics is freely available at https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics/code)

I would really appreciate your comments regarding your perspective about recording or not sensitive information in the Stakeholder Register, and about sharing or not this information with all the stakeholders (including the ones the information refers to). Also, do you have any other solution to keep useful records (including negative comments) without further destroying the relationship with the corresponding stakeholders?