Hello. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to critique your draft.
Right off the bat, I appreciate the visual and the idea of an overgrown skeletal tree figure; maybe you should explore the possibility of its relation to Old Tree Joe, a known RPC.
Your tone is 80% there. I only found a few spots where your tone could have been a little more critical. I would recommend you read other articles (like Old Tree Joe) to understand the clinical tone expected.
I do not understand why the authority is trying to keep it alive (the tree). If letting the tree die and putting the skeleton in a box would make it easier to contain, that is what the authority would do.
Some of the anomalous properties do not quite link or make sense together. Why does this thing have an EMP field, spread moldy plant matter, and breathe out hazardous gasses (specifically when herbs are inserted; I cannot comprehend a logical event in which someone even thought about feeding herbs to the skeletree guy). The sound pulse that magically disabled so many containment cells and caused a massive breach also feels a little dethatched; like you are forcing this thing that is not really a risk to become a big risk. I would try to explore the why behind your RPC before I go so deep into the what and how of it.
Your interviewer could speak a little more formally. I know they are human, but working in such a place really would sap the life and joy out of you. Also, their tone lacks professionalism. The CSD can talk however it wants, but I would suggest being more formal on the interviewer's behalf. (also check the spelling mistake in Campos and Compos)
This dream does not explain much apart from where the tree might have come from. It also does not lend any merit to why it possesses its anomalies.
I appreciated the use of non-responses in the second interview. The fact that it reads as though the doctor poked his head into the containment cell to quickly ask the anomaly a few questions does not fit well, it should be more organized and surely have more meaningful questions ready. Overall, the second interview did not add much either.
Addendum 3 should go. Not only does it make our researchers sound irresponsible and goofy, but the Authority is run in such a way that there should be enough security in place to stop this. If there really were an on-site emergency, I would assume all containers would be put on lockdown to prevent collateral.
TL;DR
I would suggest that you explore the backstory of your article a little more, as that could make sense of the seemingly out-of-place aspects and themes. If there is not a central theme to your article, I would suggest finding one. Your tone is great but does need some refining. Work on the interviewer's language.
Best of luck.