Don't know if anybody responded to this but I will go on record saying that I truly believe there is a second un-edited copy of the phone call. Just judging by the acts of this administration, the way certain punctuation is used in the transcript (use of ellipsis) and the overall deviation from usual practices of transcript release. The administration claims the use of ellipsis is for any point in the conversation that it became inaudible, but anybody who has experience with any sort of transcript of a phone call, hearing, deposition knows that it is common practice to use "inaudible" because the use of an ellipsis is most commonly used when removing text because it is superfluous to include it or because it should not be released (like a sealed indictment).
There are just too many deviations from standard practice and that coupled with the prior acts of this administration lead me to believe that the possibility of a "more complete" copy of the transcript existing. Just fishy all around.
Also, to be clear, I am not talking about anything to do with executive privilege or whatever else you're arguing with others about. I am only responding to your request for someone else to go on record with this belief of another more complete transcript.