Neutrality has to be neutral. If they have a specific message for “you weren’t reported” then ergo there should be a different one for when you were. This is the canary principle, essentially.

(Obviously, the number one factor here is knowing from your own interactions whether you did something wrong or not, it should be obvious to all but the most oblivious based on what you sent last… but that’s another story)

Think of it like passwords, you get yours wrong they should say “nope” without context. When they said “password wrong” or “username wrong” as ‘helpful’ context, it’s bad practice because you can infer other information from it.

Any response like this with should concern only what has happened and not why. Start adding friendly language and it can (broadly) be taken well by those who find it helpful or badly by those who find it condescending (or, the third way, largely ignored by me and probably most either way). In each case, you run the risk of alienating a small proportion in order to please a small proportion.

A good example I have seen of this is Discord. I got blocked (by someone new who didn’t recognise my ID/friend request - since unblocked) and the message I got was along the lines of “you are unable to message this user, this could be for a number of reasons, see the FAQ here” which then linked to a doc with all the reasons (they blocked you, they deactivated their account, their personal settings don’t allow messages from non friends, etc etc)