Due to recent unexpected test results, experimental use of RPC-002 is forbidden until further notice. For more information, see Incident Log RPC-002-F below.

The below at the end seems unnecessary.

Throughout the test logs, on multiple occasions RPC-002-1 is referred to as RPC-002-2, which if I understand correctly is the effect which makes it impossible to deduce the positions of RPC-002's chambers, which shouldn't be able to do that. This doesn't mean anything if I'm wrong about what RPC-002-2 is, but earlier in the article and after the test log the bullet is referred to as RPC-002-1 so this should probably be changed.

In effect, the activation of RPC-002-1 during test RPC-002-F resulted in the entire site being struck by more than ██ x 10^█ rounds in the same instant.

It seems pointless to censor the number for the number of rounds here. Removing the censor presents the opportunity for the reader to be presented with an attention drawing statistic that, as it stands I almost didn't notice it.

Overall the article is a definite improvement over the current 002. Also shouldn't it be a regenerative hazard given that that is a prominent property of 002? If these changes were made I would 5 star the article given I saw no other issues and the article was interesting throughout.

"RPC-002 is to be contained in a standard Alpha-class storage container. RPC-002 may be removed from its container for testing purposes, with the approval of Level 3 Research staff. RPC-002 is not to be used outside of approved testing areas, and only on approved targets. Testing on living or organic targets may be conducted with the approval of the Director of Site-███. See Addendum 002-1."

I think there needs to be a sentence before "See Addendum 002-1". Otherwise there's just "it's in a container, see addendum". Also, shouldn't it be Addendum 002-2? If so, I think you could probably just incorporate it into the containment protocols as a revision instead of "see addendum".

"Any component of the anomaly which is marked, damaged, removed or altered in any way will be immediately replaced with an identical copy of the original component; the removed component will vanish simultaneously to the appearance of the "new" component."

I think you could probably cut this last bit. I also think instead of "the removed component", you should elaborate and say "the damaged or modified components".

Apart from those the article is good. No spelling errors, but I guess that's to be expected. I think the article might need a bit more. Maybe a Discovery log?

http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/rpc002rewrite