The Complainant alleged that the DOT violated the APRA when it claimed it did not maintain certain records responsive to two requested categories and when it withheld a requested document responsive to a third requested category pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(K) as a "draft." With respect to the first category of requested documents, we found that DOT properly stated that it did not maintain any responsive records. With respect to the second category, we found that the DOT made only conclusory statements that documents did not exist. With respect to the third category, we found that the withheld document did not constitute a "draft" based on DOT's representations and our in camera review of the document. Accordingly, the DOT violated the APRA when it failed to release the requested document. Although we found no willful and knowing, or reckless violation, we directed the DOT to provide the withheld document and to more clearly support its conclusory assertion that documents responsive to the second category did not exist.