Look let me try to make this simple. Mueller's mandate was to investigate ( legal definition ) here it is..."A full investigation refers to the careful search or examination with an intension to discover facts. This may include questioning of witnesses, forensic examination and investigation of financial records." from this source[definitions.uslegal.com]
Notice its about discovering FACTS regarding the subjects of the investigation. Mueller was mandated to discover FACTS not allegation or provide potential instances.
Why read about allegations when the mandate was to discover facts? This is part of the reason why I call the report crap he didn't provide FACTS about obstruction just potential instances.
Barr and Rosenstein on the other hand entered into analyzing each of these 11 potential instances as a matter of law and found the facts deficient regarding obstruction. Why? They could not find "guilty intent" Side note:(This is why Mueller didn't choose to make a determination of criminal activity. He knew the facts were deficient to make a determination.)
Check out this quote by Barr on their decision of NO OBSTRUCTION... ""the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation," Barr added. "The evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.""
So the evidence of motives out weighed the allegations. In other words law out weighed allegations. Which is how these matters should be decided.
No reading of the allegations will change the facts or the law.