Should tests be performed on the item, assigned researcher should do so alone and perform instructed tests in chamber 17
Incomplete sentence here. Add "the" behind "researcher". Capitalize "chamber"
The key to open the container is located in test chamber 17 attached to a 1.5 meter length of chain.
Include a full space between this paragraph and the one before it. Also, shouldn't the key be in the assigned researcher's possession? It seems like it would be more secure that way.
Unlocking of the case locks inner magnetic door.
Incomplete sentence. Include "the" before "inner".
No other employees may enter or communicate with occupant until they have placed SCP-XXXX back into the container.
"the" before "occupant".
So, these conprocs seem just a bit excessive? Looking at the description, the effect is limited to a single person, so I don't understand why we need to have a separate chamber from the main facility to conduct tests, much less one with a complex locking mechanism. It doesn't even necessarily need to be soundproofed, from what I can tell, since the person holding the stone is the one who asks the question. I think you could safely tone down some of these procedures, if only so we can get on with what the thing is.
SCP-XXXX is a smooth, ovoid stone of a black material the size of an adult man’s hand.
The size comparison here actually makes it more vague. Centimeters in length will suffice.
Symbols are engraved into the surface in an unknown language and by unknown means.
Scrap "and by unknown means".
‘damage’
Remove the quotes here. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If they are trying to take stuff off of it with force, then they are trying to damage it.
the foundation’s
The Foundation is the name of an organization, and since names are Proper Nouns, they must be capitalized.
An autopsy performed by civilian coroners determined they must have died of a heart attack, even when no cause was ever fully determined.
This is a bit weird looking. Maybe try something like "Autopsies revealed the cause of death to most likely be a heart attack, though there is no evidence that this is the case." Probably a bit wordy, though.
SCP agents embedded in the medical sector came across the files and reported the anomaly.
Style choice, but I typically prefer to use "Foundation agents".
Research into the temple from where SCP-XXXX was recovered as well as all other recovered artifacts and documents were procured by the foundation upon validation of anomalous effect.
It'd help consistency to know that the object was recovered from a temple earlier, since this kind of comes out of nowhere. Commas after "was recovered" and "documents". Capitalize "foundation".
An operative embedded in local law enforcement was ordered to bring in professor Samuel Patrickson for a follow up interview regarding the statements made following the death of doctor Swansong.
First, who the hell are these people? Are they Foundation? Are they civilian? I don't know who these people are allied to since they just come out of nowhere. Second, ""professor" and "doctor" are titles here, and titles are to be capitalized. There is a difference between talking about your aunt and talking about your Aunt Sandra.
I typically advocate for the Interviewer, Interviewed, etc. stuff being added to the quoteblock with all the interview stuff. Your choice, of course, but I believe it looks cleaner if it's altogether.
Agent J. Young Foundation agent embedded in local law enforcement.
Comma after "Young".
Just your recounting of the events, if anything is missing from the first report, we will bring that up.
These are two separate clauses. REplace the first comma with a period.
Well me and doctor Swansong
Comma after "Well".
Uhm I was running
Similarly, comma after "Uhm".
*Patrickson lapses into silence for a few moments and only continues after agent asks him to.*
Don't do this. For stage cues, either A) have the action appear with the rest of the text in brackets and italics, like so
Professor Patrickson: Uhm, yes, yes it was that stone. Weird thing, weird writing. lapses into silence for a few moments and only continues after agent asks him to.// Well we were just talking; a night shift isn’t all that interesting.
Or B) by itself in between statements in a similar format
Professor Patrickson: Uhm, yes, yes it was that stone. Weird thing, weird writing.
Patrickson lapses into silence for a few moments and only continues after agent asks him to.
Patrickson: Well we were just talking; a night shift isn’t all that interesting.
Either is acceptable. Also, just have the agent interrupt after a few seconds of silence, instead of saying in a stage cue that he does. Interviews are dialogue. Put in the dialogue.
Oh uhm..uhm.
I really hate stuttering like this. I get that people actually talk like this, but it's painful to read. Also, never use just two periods for an ellipsis. Ellipses are three period followed by a space… Like that.
the stone in his hand and he was… you know, was dead.
This is the fourth time I've addressed something only for it to come up correct in the next few lines. I ask that you please go over your own work concerning spelling and grammar. If you need to, use an online writing assistant. Grammarly is usually pretty good about it.
that prior to his demise
"demise" is just enough to not be clinical. Substitute with "death".
Not sure how I feel about the interview summary, to be honest. You might be able to cut some of it, since it's redundant (The first sentence is, anyway).
Now, I remember what the concept is, so I understand what you're doing with these autopsies. However, they are pretty dull for the most part. New readers may start to lose interest when bogged down with pretty inconclusive evidence of any anomalous activity, at which point it becomes a question of "Why are we performing additional autopsy testing?"
That's not to say you can't include it. However, I don't think we need a detailed log of the autopsy performed. This would best be left to a summary so we can get on with the next bit. The Addendum you have after these logs is exactly the kind of summation I'm looking for.
Extrapolation from previous XXXX activation
I know it gets repetitive, but we need the full designation. "SCP-XXXX" should be here.
Tests would be performed in office 213 which had been subdivided and furnished for this reason. Room A would be where the interview would be held while room B held recording equipment and staff.
This kind of specificity is unnecessary. We don't need to know where these tests were held unless it is incredibly unusual. Same goes for equipment. Remove this section.
Now, I really do not like this table here. It's much more user friendly to have a single collapsible with all eleven tests included inside. That way, you can also label the collapsible something like "Show Activation Test Series" or something, rather than header each and every test log with an unformatted "SCP-XXXX activation test #". I'd also appreciate a full space in between each line of notes, just to make things a bit easier to read.
Test logs 1-4 can easily become compacted into a single log. You do not need four logs to describe each action made by the subject, especially if nothing happens and you move onto a different subject.
Similarly, test logs 5 and 6 can be pulled into one log. I suggest changing your format to who the Subject is, what the specific Purpose of the test is, and then the Results. Any additional Notes can be made if they are necessary. If I were to rewrite the first four logs…
Subject: D-194187
Purpose: To identify whether contact and object description will trigger SCP-XXXX's activation.
Results: The object was placed in front of D-194187. After twenty minutes, the subject was instructed to pick up the object with his bare hands and begin describing it while looking directly at it. This continued for twenty minutes before the test was concluded. No apparent effects from SCP-XXXX.
It doesn't need to be exactly that, but something like that. It's much more succinct and pulls things along. (Also, it's in blue because that is the color I use to make corrections and signify changes. Your log should not be in blue!)
Okay, I do like that they think that talking about losing their virginity makes the thing go off. That's really funny to me.
Email between Doctor Greenaway and Professor Young including a translated piece of text found in the Ashukl temple. Following this email alterations were made to the testing protocol.
Would have appreciated a header for this rather than having it come straight out of left field.
It was written on a scroll we found within the temple and it should help to create reliable test parameters
What does Young know about these tests? If he's a civilian, he should know nothing. If the Foundation fielded him a lie about the organization they are working within, then that should be made clear.
Doctor R. Young
I see the issue here. You've reference a "Young" three different times: one as an Agent, one as a Professor, and another as a Doctor. This is very confusing. Consistency is demanded here.
Honestly, I don't know if this email wins anything? The scroll text itself is probably fine. It's the difference between explicitly stating something implicitly stating something. Yes, some information requires explicit detail. However, if you imply something with enough clues, the puzzle will come together with the reader the further they go.
SCP-XXXX test 12
Autopsy
Get these two logs in quoteblocks, maybe even under collapsibles. It just looks messy like this.
As for the autopsy, it's just more of the same. Nothing is new here. You likely do not need it, or can do a summary of it. "An autopsy conducted on D-413175 confirmed exact results as previous autopsies, with additional testing to examine the brain. Three liters of blood, 20 samples of bone marrow, and 10 samples of spinal fluid were taken for study.". Simple as that.
Tests 13 to 15 can be included under one collapsible, especially since each test is title independently. You do not need one for each.
Autopsy performed on body mirrored those on subjects 2 through 6
Yes. This.
No further tests involving exposing individuals to SCP-XXXX by order of O5 directive.
Now, you understand, that when the O5 council is involved, it's a big fucking deal. This is a risky decision, and I suggest lowering it down to the Site Director level. O5 has almost no concern over this one object breaking the veil.
I can see his -expunged- lungs.
You are writing an object that puts people into a very-like-death state and the Foundation actively mauling them for science. You can use swear words. No one cares. Do not [EXPUNGE] swear words. It looks silly.
… And that's it?
