I think that's missing the point. Even if the information appears benign, it's still government trade secrets. Countries like China aren't singularly focused on stealing super top secret blueprints for the U.S's latest weapons technology (though I'm sure they'd jump at the chance), much of their spying is on the more mundane stuff. Like public works projects and infrastructure related information. That kind of information isn't nearly as interesting so it's not publicized as much.
But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is. There may be completely valid reasons those things are top secret. You cannot know why because you're not privy to that information and neither am I.
More than that, you're not responsible for a nation's security so you don't know what kind of threats and challenges a country faces (not just the U.S). There could be perfectly valid and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep something that might "appear" mundane, a secret.
But you're arguing from a position of ignorance. We don't know how important the information is.
Err.. My post asked "Just how sensitive was the information she shared?"
I was hoping someone would have some details of what the information was. I'd note that there are no claims it was classified let alone top secret, just that some fields weren't publicly available. There appears to be no claim she shared those non-public fields.
The details of funding sounds precicly the kind of information that should be public - and probably is - somewhere.
To me it sounds mostly like the kind of information that should be made publicly available.