Here's the basic problem with this article:
the volume mechanism is incapable of being turned down but can be turned up endlessly.
As soon as one reads this phrase, they already know exactly what's going to happen. Even if they don't, the rest of the article has even more gratuitous foreshadowing to ensure that the meaning is not lost.
I would generally describe this as a slog, not only because the ending is already obvious by the beginning but because this is a good demonstration of why it's better to leave some details inferred. Obviously superfluous moments include the discovery section, the repeated notes throughout the activity log to explain when things were recorded in the document, and the paragraph-long explanation of decibels (???).
Meanwhile, the ending exemplifies the issue of "telling" instead of "showing". The last paragraph of the incident log doesn't feel like interesting in-universe hypotheses, it feels like exposition spawned from fear that the reader didn't grasp the meaning of what happened. The concluding note explains why the anomaly was reclassified, which I can't say would've eluded me otherwise. I think the word for this is "patronizing".
It's not without any merit, however. Some of the imagery is memorable, plus Authority PDAs are kinda cool. The containment procedures are definitely not something you see every day. I do find the suggestion that multiple personnel increased the volume without communicating kind of ridiculous.
2/5
(account deleted)