Gsyfuy

On Page 2 of Volume II, Mueller writes:

(emphasis added)

Doesn't this clearly state that Mueller's team made a conscious decision to NOT to evaluate "conduct" that might lead to an indictment of the President?

Yes, but. Mueller made it crystal clear that he abided by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted -- or at least should not, because it basically gets in the way of running the country. That being said, take a look at footnote #1,091, which essentially invites to indict Trump once he's no longer in office.

The text in footnote 1091 on page 178 of the second volume reads:

A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential
criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but
would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law.
Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in
addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART.
I, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to
relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC
has recognized. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C.
at 255 (“Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such
prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or
impeachment.
”).

Also, there's a nugget on page 8 of volume II:

if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

Doesn't this clearly state that Mueller's team made a conscious decision to NOT to evaluate "conduct" that might lead to an indictment of the President?

Yes, it does. Page 8 (page 220 in the pdf) of the second volume contains the following lines (just before the conclusion heading):

Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in
which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine
whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance
of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction
laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional
system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

I (and some American media outlets, e.g. Vox) interpret that as saying Congress should be the one to determine whether to bring criminal charges. The second volume goes into much more detail, for example under the Legal Defenses To The Application Of Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes To
The President heading starting on page 159 of the second volume.

Mueller wasn't as hamstrung as you suggest. The fact that he detailed (at least) 10 probable obstruction of justice causes against Trump means obviously he did look into indictable offenses, even if he himself could not indict the president (following the DOJ doctrine that sitting president may not be indicted).

Most of the legal and journalistic opinion I've seen interprets Mueller's report as passing the buck to Congress for acting on those findings, especially based on the quote that JJJ gave. See e.g. The Atlantic "The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral
" or Vox quoting Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School: "President Trump’s supporters can call it an exoneration, but his opponents may well view it as a road map for impeachment."

The fact that Mueller suggested that Trump might even be criminally prosecuted (in the quote JJJ added to Denis' answer) is the icing on the cake so to speak.