The clinical tone shines in places but has routine trips. Numerous, horrendously misspelled words ruin what is otherwise a nice finish; for example, “preson”, “ violetly”, "consideraby", there are others. The interruptions include phrasal and grammatical issues too; “ The slider determines what how much mass the individual will gain,”, “ immediately became stuck”, “CSD-4167 expressed mild difficulty in remove the paper from his shoulder”, “ it's effects took hold”, “ its remains where discovered 23 hours later”, etc.
Conceptually, this is cluttered. The interface as described is hard to envision and has no real necessity to the anomaly’s effects. Same with the anarchist-type logo; it’s not clear why these are here.
The anomaly is essentially a one-trick pony, which isn’t a bad thing, but the logs and effects are similarly unidirectional with no twist or fresh direction. It all seems to be focused on handgun ballistics, only test log 5 really dials up the notch. The discovery log seems to nod in a novel direction for the article, but it quickly is tucked back into testing.
There are physics issues too, things I'm not quite sure about one way or the other. For example, if the subject is continually increasing in density, and that density is what gravitationally attracts bullets back to the person, then at some point the density of the person will render bullets ineffective. (Density stops bullets.) So, it seems as though this anomaly retains the ballistic effectiveness of the bullet while ignoring the increased density of the person… this is OK, just seems a bit random and out of place. Similarly, in a place like test 7, we see the steel apparatus holding up the target bend, but not the gun itself, which is closer to the subject.
Same with things like the bullet in test 7; "The bullet had returned into the nose of the pistol with a velocity consideraby higher than that of a gunshot, igniting the leftover gunpowder and causing the pistol to explode." Bullets don't ignite things, they are metal. For example, and contrary to Hollywood, shooting a gas tank will not make it explode. There is no incendiary element to a bullet, unless it is an incendiary round. So, this portion doesn't make much sense for the returned bullet to explode the gun. Extensions like this into needless physics tends to only increase the ways you can get something wrong. As an example fix, the log could simply state that the gun was destroyed; no one is going to bat an eye at a faster-than-normal bullet ripping a gun apart.
The economic scales of Test 12 get absurd at billions of dollars. A more modest number would be more suitable, and believable.
I think there was a lot of conceptual meat left on this bone; we could have seen a log where the subject is so dense that the bullet never leaves the gun's chamber (in which case it would plug the barrel and the gun would explode). Or, if the anomaly could be so strong as to make people so dense that a black hole is created. Those are just ideas, but the article needs some spice, some ingredient it currently doesn't have.
