I really enjoy this premise — I started to figure it out just before that telling crosslink, eliciting an "Aha!" from me, which is certainly a good sign. However, this piece is really quite rough around the edges. The sections written in blue appear to describe the desired version of the anomaly associated with its designation, but I got the sense that the anomaly's form is dependent on its own perception of its current name's connotations. Aside from the mechanics of the anomaly itself, I feel like the description and conprocs could have been more fleshed out and served as more of a hook for the article, as basically my only incentive to continue reading (prior to the addenda) was to see how it was connected to the region which shall remain unnamed. I'm also not really a fan of "access granted" being formatted as all lowercase, nor a single footnote that says "holly" as opposed to "Commonly known as holly" or something of that sort.
Clever, but unpolished. Novote.
EDIT: Will check back to see if my crit is implemented. Would be happy to upvote if so, because I really really enjoy this idea.
