http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/is-the-glass-half-empty-or-half-full
Image is under public domain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glass-of-water.jpg
http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/is-the-glass-half-empty-or-half-full
Image is under public domain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glass-of-water.jpg
¶ indicates a need for a paragraph break
RPC-XXXX is stored in an Alpha-Class container with a padlock at Site-016.
RPC-XXX is stored within a sealed Alpha-Class container within Site-016's containment wing.
Drinking the water inside RPC-XXXX is prohibited due to the risks of activating the object's anomalous effects.
Any subjects that were affected by RPC-XXXX by saying, "The glass was half full," were still regarded as mentally stable however they were under supervision in case of a sudden change in behavior.
Subjects that were affected by RPC-XXXX by saying, "The glass was half empty," were constantly under heavy supervision due to their aggressiveness and were considered mildly unstable. As of 06/29/18, no new experiments have been conducted on RPC-XXXX.
This is Description, not Containment. Cut it down to just what needs to be done. Try:
Contact with RPC-XXX's contents is prohibited. Affected subjects are to be under minimal observation in the event of a sudden behavioral change.
You don't need to be so specific, especially with a minicon entry.
dude that image is huge lol
RPC-XXXX is a standard glass cup that is 10.16 centimeters tall with a diameter of 6.35 centimeters. The object is consistently filled halfway with water. Any attempt to pour out the water always results in RPC-XXXX filling up with water again through unknown means.
Again, weirdly specific. I understand this is meant to be clinical but it's a little weird that you're going to the hundredth decimal with the size of the cup? How much does it matter? And if you're going to specify the exact size, then why specify how much water it's holding?
I'm not saying you need to say how much water is in it. I don't think anyone really needs to know.
Whenever the water inside RPC-XXXX is consumed, subjects report hearing a voice telling them, "Was the glass half empty or half full?" This question would repeat in the subject's mind until they answer with a phrase that is similar to "The glass was half empty," or "The glass was half full."
When the subject answers "The glass was half empty," they suddenly become more pessimistic together with being misanthropic. This is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain by the water that by unknown means, modifies it in a way that causes it to release an abundance of stress hormones, adrenaline, noradrenaline, et cetera.
When the subject answers "The glass was half full," the complete opposite effect occurs. Subjects become more optimistic as well as cheerful toward humans. This is also caused by a similar reaction in the brain only that, it causes it to release an abundance of dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, endorphins, et cetera. Both effects caused by those two answers are permanent, regardless of extensive treatment such as brain surgery.
Should the water inside RPC-XXX be consumed, affected subjects report an auditory hallucination in the form of a voice in their native language asking them to the effect of whether the anomaly is half empty or half full.
¶ This hallucination will repeat indefinitely until the subject, aloud, declares that it is either half empty or half full. Either choice results in a permanent, unalterable modification to the emotional and ideological outlook of the affected.
¶ Answering "half empty" to the hallucination results in a universally more misanthropic and pessimistic perspective. While the specific cause of the effect are unknown, observations of the chemical composition of the affected body reveal an increase in the presence of hormones and neurotransmitters related to stress in response to the consumed water.
I think you should write the other paragraph in your own words, since this is just for reference. Hopefully this gives you a better idea of how you might make the text briefer and more clinical. Note the ¶.
I think it'd be a lot easier to explain and become a bit more intriguing if you describe it as a cognitohazard instead of a chemical effect.
Non-visual cognitohazards are pretty rare. I think having a perspective-changing cognitohazard linked to taste or whatever the water's doing could be cool.
I say this because as is, this is a pretty straightforward anomaly. Even the discovery and that addenda didn't add much. The discovery itself is literally "it appeared one day and we had some CSDs drink it for no real reason" and from there it's just how the effects got worse. I dunno. I'd give this a 2 or a 3 as is.
Alright, implanted your critique. Also, I don't think I'm good at critique.
The glass itself is a workable premise, though not a particularly inventive one. It's not the kind of anomaly that can sustain an article by itself, which was my general impression when I read the earlier revision of this draft on Discord.
I'm not too sold on the object mysteriously appearing inside a package. I know that this was a relevant detail in an older revision and that the discovery isn't very important to the narrative anymore, but it just feels too convenient to have an anomaly that literally pops up one day. Maybe cut out the box part, leave the discovery a mystery, and turn this section into an "initial experimentation log" or something of the sort.
Your delivery of the initial experiments leaves something to be desired; it has an issue with the common adage of "show, don't tell". Respect the fact that the audience already understands the basics of the anomaly. Don't tell me that they "reported hearing a voice", tell me how they reacted to it. We already know how the glass immediately affects its subjects, so you should focus on their external actions to make it more interesting. You say that CSD-1008 became angrier and that CSD-1029 became more calmer, but how? That's where the juicy story lies, though admittedly you should also take into consideration that it's a tangential detail.
The concluding addendum is what's been significantly changed since last time, and I do honestly commend you for taking steps to make it more worthwhile. It's definitely a memorable and shocking conclusion in comparison. A seemingly positive effect being twisted into an incredibly regrettable one down the line is certainly something to write home about. However, the story still narrowly missed the mark for me. The closing report is the biggest let-down here: it has the opportunity to shine new light on past events and blow my mind, but in the end it's basically just an analysis of what I already know. What I would like to hear is the perspective of someone who observed the subjects' gradual mental decline in full, and a better motive for CSD-1029's actions. As it stands, I'm not sure why she thinks that the Authority wants her blood. Give me an explanation!
I would probably give this a 3/5, or maybe a 2/5 if I'm feeling particularly half empty. It's a simple progression that doesn't get utilized to any possible creative extent. I do have to praise your keen application of Authority protocol and internal politics; it's not always perfect, but it adds a lot of likable flair that would be missed by an author executing their narrative straight from point A to point B.
RPC-XXXX is a standard glass cup that is approximately 10 centimeters tall with a diameter of approximately 6 centimeters.
Repetitive phrasing with "approximately X centimeters". This is a common thing which I noticed throughout the draft and I will continue to point out further.
Any attempt to pour out the water always results in RPC-XXXX filling up with water again through unknown means.
"Unknown means" is a given for an anomaly, and this is also a rather careless description on the face of it. I don't truly understand; does it refill instantaneously? If not, how fast? Give me a measurement in milliliters per second or something. Does water removed from the glass have anomalous properties?
Should the water inside RPC-XXX be consumed, affected subjects report an auditory hallucination in the form of a voice in their native language asking them to the effect of whether the anomaly is half empty or half full.
A bit too long in my opinion; I think that the "native language" detail could be split into a second sentence. The use of "to the effect of" as a connector seems jarring, as well.
This hallucination will repeat indefinitely until the subject, aloud, declares that it is either half empty or half full.
Having "aloud" before the word "declares" unnecessarily breaks the flow of the sentence.
While the specific cause of the effect is unknown, observations of the chemical composition of the affected body reveal an increase in the presence of hormones and neurotransmitters related to stress in response to the consumed water.
"In response to the consumed water" makes this sound like a one-time thing, while I'm pretty sure that this is supposed to be permanent.
The following paragraph is nearly identical to the one that came before it, another instance of the repetitive writing.
On 10/29/17, a package was found on Site Director, Victör Marshalssön's desk.
Director of what site? Also, the comma shouldn't be there.
After the first CSD-Class
I feel like there's a more classy (no pun intended) way to refer to them. "CSD units" and "disposable personnel" come to mind, but according to the C&D Personnel Briefing you can literally just call them "CSDs".
she became more peaceful along with being calm
These are synonymous.
After the experiments were finished, RPC-XXXX was stored inside an Alpha-Class container, and the two CSD-Class were sent back to Site-031-2 and were put under heavy supervision for eight months.
I think you could remove the phrase "and were put" for general neatness here.
On 06/29/18, at Site-031-2, ASF personnel found CSD-1029 decapitated in her cell. Several cups filled with blood, as well as a knife, were discovered.
Minor suggestion: "were ALSO discovered."
In her left hand is a note reading, "I will feed my blood to my masters."
You'd think they would have removed the note by now, so make it past tense.
Site Director, Khalid Owens later wrote a report about the incident.
Unnecessary comma. This entire sentence is unnecessary, and I think the article would flow better if you let the report introduce itself.
Dear, Site-031-2 Staff
-Sincerely, Khalid Owens
The comma should go after "staff", not "dear". This is a silly way to start and end a formal government document, anyhow.
Just an hour ago before writing this, one of our CSD-Class personnel decapitated herself in her cell. It's a bit tragic but that's not what we're talking about.
This made me laugh out loud while reading, and I think it's detrimental to the mood. The second sentence could probably be removed entirely; death is pretty familiar to those who work at the Authority, and he pretty much is talking about it.
What put thought into me was what I believed caused her to do this act.
"What put thought into me" is a very unnatural phrase.
Of course, we weren't going to waste medical resources on those two, and besides, we had to know more about the effects of that object, so we let it continue.
I don't think that keeping up with the health of two subjects is that much of a drain on their resources, especially since this is set before Fail-Safe and the ensuing budget cuts.
CSD-1008's behavior went from simply pessimistic to outright having anger issues that we had to restrain him in a straitjacket every time we wanted him to do something.
I find it hard to believe that the guy who "nearly attacked the research team" had to be restrained by guards was "simply pessimistic". This does not line up. "That" is not a proper way to connect those two clauses, and "every time we wanted him to do something" is a bit too casual and nondescript for a formal internal message.
CSD-1029 meanwhile was rather cooperative and was more willing to cooperate with our experiments. However, she began having delusions, believing that we are her "masters" and didn't think much about her own well-being.
Missing commas in these two sentences.
I think what caused this was when the water from the object meddled with CSD-1029's brain, it didn't just cause her brain to release chemicals, it also modified something in her brain, most likely the frontal lobe or amygdala that caused that other change in behavior.
I'm aware that Owens isn't supposed to know exactly what happened, but this is still an absurdly meaningless explanation, and he sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about.
I think after seeing what happened to CSD-1029, I think it is more ethical to terminate CSD-1008 right away than continue this experiment. I will inform Victör Marshalssön to tell the personnel at Site-016 to temporarily stop testing with the object for now.
Repetitive wording with:
After the report was made, CSD-1008 was immediately executed and had an autopsy before being cremated. CSD-1029's body was given an autopsy before also being cremated. As for RPC-XXXX, experiments have since been continued by researchers to know more about the effects of RPC-XXXX.
Very repetitive sentences. I think you would do better to remove these entirely; they basically restate what was said at the end of the report, which I believe is a better closer for the article.