SPaG
For example, myself or just a regular person would most likely read at a range of zero to four.
Consider:
"A regular person, such as myself for example, would most likely…"
However, in what seems to always be the case in our course of work, when an anomaly has an MR, things get more complicated.
Consider:
"Things get more complicated when an anomaly has an MR, as what seems to always be the case in our line of work."
It possessed no other veins, arteries, muscles, bones, etcetera;
etc. is sufficient. Otherwise et cetera is the correct usage.
Consistency/Flow
The crevice is barred off with carbon steel, and a water-drone…
This is not particularly descriptive. Also "most carbon steel is not well-suited for marine environments." You could simply state that the crevice is barred, or use a more specific steel alloy better suited for marine environments.
Cover-S0NR3 (Sonar Error).
Consider: cover story CS-S0NR3 ("Sonar Error") to be more consistent with standard use.
P-2 Reggie Raxum | Team Lead | Call: Rex
P-2 Stan Weathers | Navigation | Call: V-lock
P-2 Nel Gibbs | Capture | Call: Steg
P-2 Gloria Santiago | Capture | Call: Plessy
I really don't like call signs used in transcripts unless it's part of the actual dialogue. Having a cast list is usually a good idea. I see using them as speech indicators as a break from clinical tone. The words they're saying aren't clinical, but the way they're presented should be. This isn't prose.
Consider using just their given last names.
Er. No. The A.I.D. has requested you make use of this item.
Consider just using "AID". This is a transcript, the capitalization is sufficient to indicate it's an acronym. The footnote is fine.
(Three more bloated hands grab onto the sides of the crack, pulling its main body with them out of the darkness. The arms connect to the base of a large human-like head. Notably, it's hair is long, dark and stringy, its eyes have no iris or pupil, and the mouth hangs open, as if broken.)
Break in clinical tone. This is prose-y and unnecessarily colorful. Remember, it is someone watching this and writing it out in a detached manner.
Example: "long, dark, and stringy" is more of a visual descriptor used in prose. Clinically it would be more akin to "Notably, its hair is long, dark-colored, and has the apparent consistency of tangled thread."
(A pause of one minute and twenty-two seconds pass, the team holding its breath, waiting)
Similar. Prose, not transcript.
(The team leaves the lake with only minor damage to the mini-sub. Every member experienced minor acoustic trauma, more advanced in P-2 V-lock and Steg, but all healed quickly.)
Same. Also: minor, minor.
A full report is available to those above Level 2 Clearance who request it from Records.
Consider: A full report is available upon request by Level 2 researchers. The "and above" is a given.
The arm severed from the anomaly was recovered from the bottom of the lake as well, and upon autopsy of the arm, it was discovered that the entire arm consisted of neural tissue.
Lapse in clinical tone. Consider:
"The anomaly's severed arm was recovered from the lake bottom. An autopsy conducted on the arm revealed that it was made up entirely of densely-packed neural tissue sheathed in water-damaged dermal coating."
…excluding this was the presence of discolored nails on the fingers.
"discolored nails" is also a break from clinical tone. If you're going to discuss neural tissue, then you should say "discolored keratinous growths on the fingers." or something similar.
One year after Foundation efforts to minimize information about the Loch Ness Monster, SCP-XXXX entered a cocooned state, and proceeded to dissolve its physical form. Currently, based on scans of the cocoon, SCP-XXXX has converted itself to a humanoid form, entirely covered in hair, except for its large bug-like eyes. The arm structures have been fused onto the back into a mass resembling wings. The entity is theorized to break from the cocoon in one month.
This is not good. It is assumed that it was dissolving itself, that's what chrysalis states are for. Also, did they do sonar imaging or x-rays on the thing at the bottom of the lake? What kind of scans? Also, "bug-like" in what way? Multi-faceted? How do we have a theory for how long it's metamorphosis is going to take? This is an entirely anomalous creature, there's no way to even guess how long this gestation period lasts.
Closing Remarks
This isn't a terrible second attempt. There are still some errors in clinical tone that you're struggling with. Your preference for prose is fairly obvious, and you haven't quite gotten to the level of tone that is consistent with the majority of the collected works.
It's not always easy, and I hope that my suggestions will help in that regard.
Overall, I'm not that interested in it. There is a mild narrative arc, but we still know precious little about the thing itself. The introduction of the MR rating isn't bad, and that was a good hook. At least for me, anyway.
If I was reading this as it is on the mainsite, I'd -1 as it currently sits.
