Overall, I'd say that the article didn't do a whole lot for me, personally. It felt like I was reading about fish biology for the majority of the article, and as someone largely unfamiliar with it, the anomalies themselves didn't seem particularly interesting, and the list of -B creatures seemed to be something of a grab-bag of random things.
There isn't really any sort of story or narrative for the entire thing. We don't know why the -A instances make the -B instances, or why they do anything else for that matter. The incident log seems to come out of nowhere, as the reader was unaware the -A instances were intelligent, capable of emotions, or possessed psionic capabilities in the first place.
The clinical tone was also something of an issue, and I listed some lines below that stuck out, although I'd really give the thing another once-over. I generally try to keep things as non-emotive and concise as possible while still being clear.
The biggest thing for me was the lack of any overarching plot or characters, and the lack of a reason to care for the SCP itself until the very end of the article. The clinical tone could also use a bit of work, and some sentences could be made more concise/clearer. Some line-by-line is included below.
the carcass will independently bury itself completely roughly 50 centimeters under the sand.
Will the carcass reanimate, or is it pushed by some unseen force? The mechanism for this should be listed.
SCP-8675309-A instances will consume anywhere from 30 to 50 kilograms of provided bone matter each.
Where did they get all that bone matter? It can't be from whatever carcass was placed in the tank.
produced during their previous captivity
You could probably just leave it at "produced previously."
This fur is unusually sharp and when directly touched induces [REDACTED] in female humans.
Not entirely sure why this is redacted. Same goes for all of the following redactions.
Due to elongated feet, tail loss, and significant changes to the spinal column, a bipedal stance was adopted.
This might work better if you flip the beginning and end of the sentence.
The first paragraph in the addendum could use another pass for clinical tone.
You should probably list the number of instances earlier in the article.
Both the researchers and the article referring to the anomalies by names seems like a breach in clinical nature, especially be referring to the instances by name in the incident log.
before feeling a FILL sense
Not entirely sure what this means.
I'd use another word than "jerkily."
