• I enjoyed the description of the weird biology of the anteaters. That was some nice clinical tone.
• The initial tests were interesting, but did not really go anywhere. I felt disappointed that the thaumaturgic conversion wasn't explored more in-depth.
• The incident and its causes were poorly delivered and conveyed. It took me several reads to construct a mental image of the event, and even then the reason for the 180° change in behavior eludes me.
• The explanation for organic thaumaturgy didn't feel like an explanation, and the exposition didn't interest me. The idea of a nature-aligned force turning litter into natural products is fun, but the way it was conveyed feels plain. On a technical level, the grammar was poor and took me several reads to parse it.
• The conclusion was alright, but it felt robbed of its impact by the poor grammar.

Overall, I feel that I would have enjoyed this article much more if it was cut to 3/4ths of its length (in particular the Discovery, some test logs and the final appendix feel too long) and rewritten for better grammar. As it stands, I'm inclined to no-vote or down-vote.