Having not listened to this yet, my take on the ambiguity or lack of clarity on what is what within the framework (or lack thereof) that SCOTUS outlined is that, without clarity, no lower court can have certainty about any of their findings. The lower courts had some pretty frickin' good guidance on whether a president was immune from criminal prosecution, yet it was totally gutted by SCOTUS. It's hard for me not to look at the built-in ambiguity of this latest ruling as to allow for all decisions about what is what when determining immunity to ultimately be theirs to decide.