No, the definition of corruption is offering illicit personal incentives

Pointing out that Tesla might be prepared to do x, y and z in the state in only the regulatory framework concerning p and q is compatible with their plans is plain old lobbying. Whether this is more good because it means lots of jobs for Texas or bad because the existing regulatory framework does an excellent job of protecting roads/labour/investors is exactly the sort of decision we give to elected representatives, for better and for worse. If the regulatory framework gets changed and then Tesla sets up a new plant, we probably see the governor issue press releases about it. Same goes for if local government chooses to subside the plant construction to "bring jobs to the state". That doesn't mean all the questions any politician or government agency actually trying to do the right thing should ask to establish the credibility of the proposal should be asking aren't legitimately trade secrets.

Personally, I define it as corruption when quid pro quo occurs, nice gifts, expensive dinners, etc.

In government work, in my field specifically, it's the inappropriate transfer of money (gifts, deals, dinners) that's reportable.

The limit for reporting in my field (for gifts) is 10 dollars.

Can't demonstrate quid-pro-quo of the details are redacted.

Negotiating is difficult if you show your hand. It is arguably beneficial to both the state and Elon that the e-mails stay redacted. I agree it is unfortunate though.

Sensitive negotiations like those should be handled by low-level bureaucrats with supervision, not by the damned Governor. Again, negotiating directly with a state governor is obviously corrupt no matter what the contents. This would have been instantly clear to any American back when we were an advanced nation.

Could you elaborate why an executive having sensitive conversations with a governor is corrupt? I'm having difficulty understanding this outlook.

My industry has historically been extremely corrupt. This is why rules were defined for reportable expenses. Could you boil down your viewpoint into rules that can be applied in an organization, rather than a vibe test? I think I could better understand you, then.

If the result of the negotiations are in good faith and beneficial for his constituents, then it is not corruption. Of course, that's open to interpretation.

Corruption is usually when there is personal benefit to the politician themselves.