and instructed to outline any such ecosystems that they encounter.
The use of “outline” here makes the anomaly seem quite innocuous. I would use “highlight”.
Their findings are to be crosschecked with those of other personnel and passed to Site-113 for verification
I don’t see how this additional step is relevant – it doesn’t add any danger or information about the scp. I would remove unless Site-113 holds some significance to the conprocs.
The size and location of these forests are then to be cataloged and used to monitor global kelp trends.
Even though this scp is neutralized, you should still try and hint at what the original danger was. What about “global kelp trends” do we need to monitor? Why was it anomalous in the first place.
Generally, your conprocs should be used to hint at the scp’s anomalous properties. Even if neutralized, I don’t really learn anything from this section except it needs to be monitored from afar.
After two to three hours, a mucus-like substance (designated as SCP-XXXX-1) would begin being secreted from SCP-XXXX for a duration of 20 to 80 minutes
Phrasing here is accurate, but can be cleaned up to sound better: “After two to three hours, a mucus-like substance (designated as SCP-XXXX-1) was secreted from SCP-XXXX for a duration of 20 to 80 minutes.”
██ SCP-XXXX-A events have been recorded.
Unsure why this is blacked out. Is it sensitive information that we should not know?
Current hypotheses suggest that during SCP-XXXX-A
Add an “events” after for clarity.
meristem
Give us a footnote?
After █ years of research
Black-outs should only be used to censor sensitive information, and are generally used quite sparingly. I don’t think this should be blacked out either.
being mostly alginic acid.7
An extra “7” here.
not completely understood,8 it
An extra “8” here.
After █ years of research, scientists identified SCP-XXXX-1 as being mostly alginic acid.
This might be a side-note, but I’m unsure why the article is moving in this direction. The description earlier was cool and detailed, but suddenly, it’s pivoting into the scp’s medicinal and amnestical benefits. The problem is I don’t understand how the two sections have linked. Maybe it will become clearer later?
SCP-XXXX was declared Neutralized on 07/21/19██ due to continuous harvesting of SCP-XXXX-1.
You mean the Foundation completely harvested the scp?
The following document was approved by the Ethics Committee on 04/16/20██ for use by personnel in the Manufacturing Department.
This next section is a little confusing. First off, the foreword here doesn’t tell us what the document is supposed to be about. Is a journal entry? Instruction manual? Try and give us some context.
Kelp forests have been important to human existence for thousands of years.
Okay, I have mixed feelings about this final document as well: what is it trying to show / tell us? It reads more like a summary report mixed with a discovery report mixed with a journal entry – the style and purpose isn’t that clear.
If you want an exploration log report, then you should format it as such, and have the narrator document the journey to the scp’s discovery, testing, and eventually, its death. I would split it up into smaller logs and not just dump all the info here in one chunk.
