http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/stiltwalker-deer-girl
Hey y'all! In case you haven't been to the discord, I'm back!
Looking for some crit on my returning piece. Happy to be back, and stay tuned for more!
I hope my response is useful to you, I tried my best but it's my first attempt at critiquing.
RPC-XXX is to be housed in a standard humanoid containment unit with no special containment requirements, on a site located nearby or within a densely wooded area1. In terms of sustenance, the Subject is to be provided with a nutritionally balanced diet for herbivorous creatures consisting of fresh grasses, leaves, nuts, and other suitable dietary components. If requested, a modest portion of raw beef, pork, or chicken may be offered as a substitute for a regular meal. Each request must be reported to the designated project researcher and documented for record-keeping purposes. The requests cannot be denied due to its necessity to RPC-XXX's natural diet, despite the effects it has on the Subject.
I would change the term “containment unit” to “containment chamber” and instead of saying “with no special containment requirements” say “with no chamber modifications.”. When it comes to the footnote and describing site requirements, I think you should instead just say what site the entity is held at and then describe the site requirements under the guise of it being in case of transportation. That way you can forego the footnote entirely. So something like “held in Site-XXX. In the event RPC-XXX must be moved to a different site, the site must reside in or nearby a [densely wooded]/[forested] area.” Saying that dietary requests cannot be denied should be said first when speaking about requesting meat. As such, the wording of the other two sentences should be reworded to not sound voluntary. So instead of “may be offered as a substitute” it would be “must be given as a substitute”. I would recommend the structure [meat RPC receive][request cannot be denied sentence][reason for requirement][record keeping]. Finally, throughout the article you frequently switch between referring to the entity as either “RPC-XXX” or “the subject”. This issue is present starting at this paragraph and up to the [INSERT SECTION]. You should correct all mentions of “the subject” to “RPC-XXX” for consistency.
In the event that an escalation in the frequency of these requests is observed, security personnel are obligated to conduct regular check-ups on RPC-XXX at intervals of fifteen minutes. In the event that the Subject cannot be located within its unit, an MST specialized in game tracking2 and negotiation must be dispatched to the wooded area nearest to the site. This team holds the necessary authority to tranquilize the target prior to retrieval should it become violent. Tranquilizing RPC-XXX to expedite the retrieval process is not allowed at any point, and negotiations must continue until RPC-XXX comes willingly to ensure its continued trust in Authority spaces and personnel.
The wording is consistently obtuse, it would read better to use stronger definitive wording. So for example instead of “in the event” use “when”. Or this part saying “personnel are obligated to”, saying that isn’t really necessary, MST wouldn’t be doing a very good job if they weren’t obligated to follow guidelines at all times, so instead just say “MST must check in on”. Also, this footnote is largely unnecessary. You could probably simplify “game tracking” to just “tracking” to make it even simpler. The final section on recontainment is inverted from the order it should be in. First you should say the MST must refrain from using force and should instead coax the entity back into containment, then say that if the entity gets aggressive they can fall back on force.
As of 08/07/20██, containment protocols are pending changes to allow RPC-XXX to exist in a more natural environment.
Why? If this is just to make a nicer environment for the entity, I don’t believe that’s something the Authority is willing to do. You can still include this part though, just add a justification for the change that is useful for containment. Off the top of my head, explaining it away with the justification of making the containment chamber the nearest wooded area to prevent containment breaches would suffice.
RPC-XXX is a female member of a critically endangered species known as Stiltwalker Deer3. The species is similar in appearance to the White-tailed Deer, with the primary difference being that Stiltwalkers have the capabilities to ambulate on their hind legs. Additionally, Stiltwalker Deer possess small tridactyl hand-like appendages4, which they can walk on. Aside from RPC-XXX, the remaining four discovered members of its species are currently held on an Authority-owned preservation for the purpose of observation and safeguarding the species from extinction, despite exhibiting typically mundane characteristics when compared to RPC-XXX. The subject appears to be a young adult of its species, as the white spots indicative of a juvenile are still visible on the hindquarters of RPC-XXX.
The first footnote is not necessary because you already put the binomial name in the taxonomy box. I actually recommend inverting this and switching “Stiltwalker Deer” with the binomial name and putting a footnote on the binomial name giving the common name. Furthermore you should replace all common names with binomial names to make the document sound more clinical, so “Siltwalker Deer” —> “Pedestrocervus tridactylus” and “White-tailed Deer” —> “Odocoileus virginianus”. When you talk about the legs, the separation of describing the ability to ambulate and the tridactyl appendages into two sentences makes it sound like you are describing a hexapod with four legs and two arms, but I think you meant for the tridactyl part to be about the feet at the end of the legs. The sentence “Aside from… …when compared to RPC-XXX.” should be moved further backwards in the paragraph to the part where the species as a whole was initially being described since the next part begins to deal with the entity itself. You also don’t need to qualify that the entity is an exception twice in the same sentence.
The subject's deviations from its species necessitate its containment. RPC-XXX exhibits notable humanoid characteristics surpassing those of other Stiltwalker Deer members, characterized by a distinctively human-like facial structure and the presence of two four-inch stunted antlers that grow and shed naturally similarly to other deer species. Additionally, RPC-XXX possesses a high IQ with the ability to think at the level of a grade-school child. Of particular significance is the subject's peculiar dietary requirement of meat. The underlying cause of this behavior remains unknown; however, if the subject were to transition to a solely carnivorous diet, it would undergo a translocation phenomenon to the nearest wooded area. After teleportation, the subject will resume its herbivorous diet until once again reverting to its carnivorous tendencies sometime in the future. There is no consistency to this behavior, as the subject can go from as many as eight months without this event taking place to as little as thirty-two hours.
You don’t need to have the first sentence to preamble that you are about to talk about the abnormal properties of the entity when you can just start talking about the abnormal properties, so you should remove the first sentence. The wording in the next sentence doesn't flow well, you should simplify it by just describing the characteristics. “RPC has humanoid facial structure”, “RPC grows and sheds a pair of antlers over time”. You also don’t need to say “the presence of” when referring to antlers. I would drop the part about IQ and simply say “Cognitively, RPC-XXX has the intellect of a grade-school child, etc.”. When it comes to talking about the entities' translocation phenomena, I would move that last sentence in the paragraph back to before or after the sentence “Of particular… …requirement of meat.” and drop the “There is no consistency to this behavior” and “The underlying cause of this behavior remains unknown; however,” in favor of just saying the range of dietary transition time varies and jumping right into describing the translocation phenomena. The word “would” is placed wrong and the tense of “undergo” in the sentence “it would undergo… …nearest wooded area” is wrong, and it should be “it undergoes” or if you wish to be more specific “RPC-XXX undergoes”. Final notes, what if the Authority just didn’t feed the entity meat and kept feeding it a herbivorous diet? Can they not do this because it goes beyond a craving, and is a dietary requirement transition? If so, that should be made more clear. What would the consequences be on the entity's health if it’s not fed meat?
Regarding its intelligence, the Subject possesses a rudimentary grasp of the English and Dakota languages, enabling basic communication for expressing essential necessities and conveying elementary concepts. Because of this, the Subject has been enrolled in game-based learning programs currently overseen by Junior Researcher Maela Kinnd5. The Subject has demonstrated overall receptiveness and compliance with these instructional sessions, as well as displaying cooperative behavior in its containment environment.
I think this paragraph should be moved to be with the part of the last paragraph talking about the entity's intelligence level, and the part of the last paragraph describing the translocation phenomena the entity experiences should be made into its own separate paragraph like this one was. The part that reads “for expressing… … elementary concepts” is confusingly worded, and I don’t think it is even necessary to include when you already summed up the idea with the previous “enabling basic communication”, so I would just drop that. What are game based learning programs? Never heard of that before.. Also, the footnote makes it seem like Maela Kinnd used to go by the name Jason Reids and not that Jason Reids used to oversee the entity, so I would change the footnote to be more clear about Jason Reid's previous role on the project.
For ease of reference, the Subject has expressed a preference for the name "Chanhassen," meaning "Sugar Maple Tree" in the Dakota language. In order to facilitate interactions with the subject, it is recommended all personnel refer to RPC-XXX as "Chanhassen" while conversating due to its aversion to its official designation.
I would move this part over to the containment procedures as part of the second paragraph, which seems like an important protocol for personnel to know and follow. The word “conversating” is wrong, and should be changed to “conversing”.
RPC-XXX was initially found within the boundaries of a Native American reservation in Minnesota by a local hunter, that had successfully tracked and hunted the subject, leaving it in critical condition. Upon the hunter's report to the local Fish and Wildlife Department of Minnesota, the Authority intervened, intercepting and seizing the entity. At the time of acquisition, RPC-XXX had suffered from three gunshot wounds to its torso, resulting in severe injuries. The subject's condition necessitated multiple resuscitation attempts, as well as surgery to address internal bleeding and other injuries. Eventually, the subject's condition was stabilized successfully and it was contained without issue.
The first comma in the first sentence is incorrectly placed and should be removed. The wording “successfully tracked and hunted”, if not for the rest of the sentence, sounds like how you would describe a hunt that resulted in a kill. Something like “hunted and captured” would be better instead. I would also move the sentence “Upon the.. …the entity.” to the beginning of the paragraph, and then reorder and reword the sentence so that the reason for the Authority's attention being peaked is mentioned. Something like “Upon intercepting reports about a ‘deer with a human face’… etc”. You can drop the “from” in “…had suffered from three…” to read as “…had suffered three gunshot…”. You can simplify the next sentence by mentioning surgery first and the resuscitation attempts, so like “RPC-XXX’s condition necessitated surgery and multiple resuscitation attempts.”, that way you can drop everything after. Instead of "stabilized successfully” say “successfully stabilized”, I would also add a blurb about the entity being registered on the Authority database when contained.
In rare instances, there may be occurrences where the entity escapes its containment unit. This event is typically accompanied by a sudden surge in the Subject's desire for meat. RPC-XXX maintains that these instances are not intentional acts. After vanishing from its containment unit, the subject will awaken disoriented and bewildered within wooded areas. Why and how this happens is unknown, as the subject vanishes with little to no warning. In such situations, it is often found patiently awaiting retrieval. However, in 40% of these events, RPC-XXX may exhibit signs of confusion and display erratic behavior that requires verbal de-escalation whenever feasible.
The entity translocating to the outside of its containment chamber and the surge in desire for meat were already mentioned in the description, and the entity sometimes needing to be coaxed was already mentioned in the containment procedures. Since this paragraph is largely repeated information I would merge the new information given with the paragraph below and drop extraneous information.
To date, the event of RPC-XXX's escape has only occurred in the absence of direct human observation but has been captured by surveillance cameras. A prevailing hypothesis posits that the Subject possesses the ability to displace itself within the surrounding forest by replacing itself with an equal volume of space at the point of egress. This hypothesis formed when several leaves had been found in RPC-XXX's cell after it had vanished during autumn. Ongoing efforts are being undertaken to investigate this theory further. In this regard, wireless solar-powered cameras are being employed to identify the exact point of origin6 for RPC-XXX's teleportation during its next episode of escape. These measures aim to gather additional data and provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind the Subject's anomalous abilities.
The use of “but” in “but has been” is clunky, instead use a comma and however to transition to the exception to the lack of observation. Instead of “A prevailing” just say “The prevailing” or “The most prominent”. The wording “to verify” makes more sense in the context of a hypothesis in place of “to investigate”, additionally the word “further” isn’t necessary.
The wording about the entity's “teleportation point of origin” makes it sound like the entity teleports to the same place every time regardless of location, but that’s clearly been established to not be the case throughout the article so the wording should be made clearer so that it doesn’t sound contradictory.
Didn’t see any non stylistic typos in this interview so that's cool. However, the dialogue is very heavy handed, Fredricks is comically aggressive towards the entity and incredibly unprofessional calling Reids a “quack”, calling the entity a “damn idiot”. It's especially unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be the head of security over an entire containment wing and a very transparent “kick the dog” character. At the same time Reids is too forgiving of the entity, I understand you’re going for “Look at this cute deer anomaly! This doctor is nice to it so he's a good guy!” but the reality of the situation described is the entity attacked Authority personnel after mysteriously spontaneously translocating outside containment and Junior Researcher Reids questions and tone should reflect that reality until he gains a comprehensive understanding of; the entity's awareness of the situation, the broadness of the entity's translocation abilities and what triggers translocation. Additionally, two people present to interview the anomaly isn’t necessary either, at most the interviewer would be in the room with ASF personnel there for security. Lastly, the name of a person should come after their title, so it should be changed to “Junior Researcher Jason Reids” and “Head of Security at Site-XX's Humanoid Containment wing Haley Fredricks”. Also the specification of “head of security at site-xxx” isn’t necessary, you already said what site the entity was contained at earlier in the article, that and “wing” should’ve been capitalized, so the proper title would be “Humanoid Containment Wing Head of Security”.
I feel like this shouldn’t be an interview, and should instead be an addendum. Something like “Addendum XXX-3 Learning Capabilities and Progression of Intelligence” that sums up the entity’s progress with learning application, the entity’s responsiveness to learning and the furthering of this endeavor by administering a journal and speech therapists to the entity.
Overall I like the idea of the RPC and once it’s undergone a proper reformat and grammar correction in the edit I think it can make a fun and simple article. The only portions I majorly disagree with are the interviews, I really think the tone of the interviews clashes with the overall character of the Authority. The Authority isn't an anomalous entity daycare, they’re clinical scientists and researchers. You can still tell the story of the cute entity, just frame it under the guise of research interest where the main focus for researchers is the intellectual capability of the entity and developing methods of containing the translocation phenomena.
I'm a ^🅱️ot
There's so much here that it is difficult to actually respond to any of it, but I thank you greatly! This is such a great help! A lot of the issues are mostly because of my lack of skill when I initially wrote this back in 2023, and I just never cleaned them up.
I wish all crit could come like this, but I know that's not feasible for everyone.
If it's okay, could I poke you in discord to take a look once I feel I've fixed things up properly?
Pausing this request for now, as I've decided to work on it more.
But please feel free to leave crit anyway! I'd still love the feedback!
I've made plenty of changes thanks to the first batch of crit! Please respond to this post with more crit of the current version!
The biggest issue with this article is its anomalous abilities isn't tied to a particular theme which fits this narrative, which in this case should be a simple task if you ask questions pertaining to its (just two!) properties: What is this meat-seeking behavior supposed to symbolize, and if it's drug use, how can I better incorporate how it got to this point? Perhaps as a consequence of deforestation, it has anomalously adapted this property? Or was it previously afflicted by this yearning for flesh by experimentation? Could it be that it was once a human child whom cruel scientists decided to combine with another species (like in the movie The Fly), or was it that they were trying to learn what deers think? All of these are questions worth asking, with interesting and thematically relevant answers included as cohesive glue to the article as a whole. You must have a specific statement or message you want to convey with this article, which guides the story and character you wish to convey; If it's a theme of neglect or ostracization, how does its teleportation and yearning for meat connect to this?
Another glaring issue is that by the latter half, it tends to forget it's a technical document. The prose and tone found in the advancements addedendum are not only unclinical but also unprofessional. It should be noted that this would be acceptable were it in a different setting, i.e. within a found journal entry of a third party, caretaking this anomaly.
It's a sweet article and I really like the imagery you use in the description. Overall, well-written, but there are a lot of disconnected bits and pieces that go nowhere and do not tie well with the rest of what is written about it, especially in the addenda. Say you implement many of my execution-related concerns below, I would rate it 3 stars then; But this has the potential to be more with just a few adjustments here and there for a much more impactful ending, which I assume was your intention with the final log. Workshop the addenda and see how you can address the issues I've outlined. With the direction you're taking, I'm excited what you'll come up with.
Tranquilizing RPC-XXX to expedite the retrieval process is not allowed at any point, but may be utilized should it become violent.
Try:
During retrieval, tranquilization of RPC-XXX may only be granted in the sole case that the subject shows aggression.
For ease of reference, RPC-XXX has expressed a preference for the name "Chanhassen," meaning "Sugar Maple Tree" in the Dakota language.
Containment protocol is purely prescriptive. Since this is descriptive, incorporate it into the description instead.
Pedestrocervus tridactylus
Both the footnote and the Taxonomic title repeat the Binomial name. Instead, add the common name for both. Seeing that this is a made-up species, you can translate the common name from the binomial naming you made up (a good resource to refer to can be found in this document). Also, the binomial name in the description should be italicized.
Stiltwalkers have the capabilities to ambulate on their hind legs, and possess small tridactyl hand-like appendages on their forelimbs., which they can walk on.
Seeing that they walk on those limbs anyway, it's redundant to state it when it is implicit.
characterized by a distinctively human-like facial structure and has the possession of a pair of four-inch stunted antlers that grow and shed naturally similarly to other deer species species of its order.
After teleportation, RPC-XXX will resume its herbivorous diet until once again reverting to its carnivorous tendencies sometime in the future.
You can try connecting the subsequent sentence to this one with a conjunction or (preferably) a footnote.
On 9/27/20██
Redaction here serves no purpose in lore and as a reading experience, by the latter I mean it lessens the immersion cause it raises more questions that aren't as intriguing as they seem.
RPC-XXX had suffered three gunshot wounds to its torso, resulting in severe internal injuries trauma.
Nitpick, but it's hard to believe it didn't stop by the second shot.
Further Addendums Addenda
I don't see the point of adding collapsibles to short entries. They're fine visually, but feel silly when the point of collapsibles is condensing the segments into digestible chunks. Seeing that they already are, it makes less sense to format it this way.
We didn’t notice it at first and thought she was being picky about her food
like a starving dog in an alleyway only to seem disappointed at something.
You probably want to reword this as it's colorful imagery, but without the needed clarity.
like she was suffering withdrawals from some hard drug a chronic drug addict going coldturkey
Obviously, she was malnourished but it shouldn’t have been this bad at this point. When I got to her all she could do was say “meat” just over and over again. We got her some and she almost perked right back up. It kept asking for it every day until the first XXX-A event happened. It just vanished, a slight smell of a pond was left behind but that’s it.
This addendum serves little beyond recounting what we already learned in the description. Instead, you can use this as an opportunity to add a more colorful retelling of the event. For example, you can try:
She was obviously malnourished at this point, but it shouldn’t have gotten this bad. Stranger still is she wound up only sort of braying out "rabbit", "squirrel", or simply "meat" when we approached her. Neumann suggested we give it excess 286 flesh for logistics' sake, to which she perked right up and consumed it with the enthusiasm of a starved wild boar. It was a matter of seconds before half the trough was emptied that she vanished the moment we looked the other way. I remember as we called retrieval that a subtle scent of pond water lingered momentarily.
RPC-XXX maintains that the XXX-A events are not intentional acts outside its volition, claiming to have little to no memory of wanting to eat meat. Often after this event, it is often found patiently awaiting retrieval.
RPC-XXX may has exhibited signs of confusion and erratic behavior that which requires verbal de-escalation to alleviate. whenever feasible
"Require" is dialectic in nature, so it defeats its use when you say "whenever feasible".
To date, the event of RPC-XXX's escape has only occurred in the absence of direct human observation, however it has been captured by surveillance cameras.
"Escape" implies this was intentional. I also needed to re-read this sentence multiple times to infer what you meant to say here, so it needs rephrasing. Direct human observation already means surveillance is rendered indirect; In fact, this could be incorporated into the containment protocols to detect XXX-A events. Try:
As of writing, RPC-XXX-A events have only occurred in the absence of direct human observation.
The prevailing hypothesis posits that RPC-XXX possesses the ability to displace itself within the surrounding forest by replacing itself with an equal volume of space at the point of egress.
This clause is largely disconnected from its prior. You should use the sentence after as a bridge between this sentence and the one before it (X happened likely as a consequence of Y)
Ongoing efforts are being undertaken to investigate this theory further.
You switched from a hypothesis to a theory, which is a step above it and what researchers are striving to achieve to begin with. Try:
Investigation is ongoing to substantiate this hypothesis.
To this end, wireless solar-powered cameras are being employed to track and log the next point of manifestation.
I fail to understand how this better helps researchers further their understanding.
8/12/20██__
Missing __. Same two entries down.
now recorded at eight months, and twelve days.
Maela, please don’t enroll XXX in more courses. Order from the Overseer. -Reids
It's unusual for the chain of command to be expressed in this manner. Instead, it should be directly from the position giving orders. Also, we do not have the position of an overseer in RPC, and the equivalent of it (Global Director) is excessive for this decision. Try:
"Refrain from enrolling RPC-XXX in any higher levels of education."
- Site Director (choose a name here)
47th XXX-A event, the second within only 48 hours
This behavior's been going on for several months, but it's only gotten worse. It's like seeing those poor animals in zoos whose cognitive needs aren't being met. She It has a good mind. I'll see if the Overseer will reconsider their decision on revoking the education program from RPC-XXX. I'll also be placing a request for a more natural containment unit.
This reads too sympathetically on an official document, in which case you'll need to convey it subtly. It also makes no sense to have a researcher read this out like a diary for personnel who are provided this document for informational purposes. Try:
"It is important to note RPC-XXX's mental state has significantly deteriorated over the past four months, and this behavior in particular has progressively worsened; It is suspected that this is the cause of recent cognitive regression. Additionally, [it] has grown reclusive to personnel previously amicable in [its] eyes. Based on this development, I request that the education program for RPC-XXX be reinstated as a containment protocol."
- Lead Researcher Reids.
Should an escalation in the frequency of these requests be observed, security personnel are to conduct regular check-ups on RPC-XXX at intervals of fifteen minutes.
I'm not sure I understand these protocols. How frequent do these requests need to be made to be considered an escalation? Also, why not put it under 24 hour surveillance? Since there are no modifications made to the standard containment room, cameras shouldn't be a problem.
There might be a specific reason for why security needs to show up every 15 minutes, but that reason should be evident in the protocols (for example, they need to show up and administer a shot every 15 minutes). Either way, there needs to more details on what is considered actionable. Doesn't have to be a hard number, but some sort of guideline.
Upon discovery, MST Victor-8 are to refrain from using force and attempt to coax RPC-XXX back into Site-120 to ensure its continued trust in Authority staff. During retrieval, tranquilization of RPC-XXX may only be performed in the sole case that the subj.
Incomplete Sentence. But I like where it was going. There needs to be emergency protocols for what happens if it attacks or doesn't cooperate. If it can break containment, the Authority shouldn't be terribly adverse to tranqing it if it does so.
Of particular significance is RPC-XXX's peculiar and inconsistent dietary requirement of meat. If RPC-XXX were to transition to a solely carnivorous diet, it would undergo a translocation phenomenon, dubbed RPC-XXX-A, to the nearest wooded area.
If the teleportation ability is activated by the consumption of meat, then why would the authority ever feed it meat at all? It's clear later that it become sick if it does not consume meat during this period. But the Authority should be thinking of ways to prevent teleportation. How much meat is required for a teleportation event to happen? Could a substitute be used? All things the Authority should be testing to maintain containment.
Regarding teleportation, you need to explain its mechanics more, as the Authority would have tested it into the ground to make sure it can never breach containment.
More importantly, you could use it to expand the character of the anomaly. Is the teleportation voluntary? If so, is it trying to escape on purpose? If so, why?
If it's not voluntary, how does it feel about that? Is it upset by the sudden teleportation? Confused? Scared? Excited? Regardless of emotion, why does it feel the way it does?
RPC-XXX's peculiar and inconsistent dietary requirement of meat.
I also wanted to emphasize this requirement here as it holds a lot of potential but is underutilized. How does the anomaly feel about sudden urges to eat meat randomly? Does it care about the sudden change in diet? Is it disgusted by it? Does it see itself as a predator, and thus not really care about eating meat? Or does it align more closely with standard deer, and see itself as a prey animal? If the latter, how does it feel about the cognitive dissonance eating meat would create?
During the initial investigation, it was found by a local hunter that was hunting illegally on a native reservation.
0:10:22 - Its breaths become erratic, and it begins uttering "No" in the Dakota language repeatedly
This is good. It's interesting and gives us insight into the anomaly as a character. However, it's never expanded upon. Naturally, I'd recommend exploring this more. What is it saying no to? The camera it seemingly just noticed? It eating meat? Or the impending teleportation?
0:15:02 - RPC-XXX flips to the final flashcard, and panics upon seeing the image throwing it away.
Same as previous point. Good and interesting, but never expanded upon. What did it see? Why would it invoke such fear?
12/27/20██ RPC-XXX develops trusting bond with Junior Researcher Reids. Shows signs of learning aptitude.
Show don't tell. Expand on this. Show us this either through observation logs or direct interviews.
3/01/20██ RPC-XXX now reading and speaking at an 8th grade level. Expresses desire to “do what you do” to Lead Researcher Reids.
Same as above. A lot of these little developments can be expanded. But expanding all of them would make the article way too long. Still, some should be expanded. Specifically ones that develop the character of the anomaly and the important researchers. Also any that help develop the theme of the article. Ideally any expansions do both.
4/13/20██ 47th XXX-A event
The whole point of the RPC Authority is to contain anomalies. The Authority shouldn't be okay with almost 50 containment breaches and should be doing more to stop it. Either reduce the number or show them trying to put in more containment measures, preferably both.
Some ideas would be substitute meat to prevent teleportation or teams on standby in nearby wooded areas to deploy and immediately recapture the anomaly. If it keeps teleporting to a specific wooded area (aka, the nearest one) then they'd be on standby there pretty much at all times. EDIT: (You mention a team already, which is good, but it should be mentioned that the team is specifically on standby in the expected locations at all times specifically for the anomaly. Also a update deploying the team there in the article could be useful as well.
Important note: if you show the Authority putting in more measures, they have to eventually make progress. If they try and fail miserably, it makes the Authority look incompetent. (As opposed to right now where they are being depicted as negligent).
It is important to note RPC-XXX's mental state has significantly deteriorated over the past four months, and this behavior in particular has progressively worsened; It is suspected that this is the cause of recent cognitive regression. Additionally, it has grown reclusive to personnel previously amicable in its eyes. Based on this development, I agree with Junior Researcher Kinnd's request that the education program for RPC-XXX be reinstated as a containment protocol. - Lead Researcher Reids
This is also never shown. This comes out of nowhere and is never alluded to or mentioned in the article. It's also never shown that the regression is related to the cessation of the education program. There should be observation logs setting up this development.
Final Thoughts
You have a solid foundation for a very interesting article. The not-deer is a good idea to use, and the meat eating is an interesting spin. You also have some good groundwork for some interesting themes as well. (Call of the wild via teleportation being not voluntary or otherwise compelled by a desire to be in nature, nature vs nurture via needing to eat meat and not wanting to, healing from trauma via the panic attack from the flash cards).
It all depends on which direction you want to take the article.
However, while you have a good foundation, some more work needs to be done on fleshing it out. A lot of the article creates good footnotes, but don't do enough to capture the readers interest in their current form. Neither the anomaly nor the researchers are fleshed out enough, and a clear theme is not developed and fleshed out either.
Also, the Authority is allowing too many containment breaches that it should not be allowing. Further, it's not doing enough to prevent future breaches. Put simply, it's being negligent, and the Authority shouldn't be characterized as a negligent organization.
All of this can be fixed by:
Tightening the containment protocols
Determining your desired theme for the article and advancing it
Fleshing out the interactions between the characters
Overall, a very good first draft with no fundamental errors that builds a solid foundation. With some more work, this has the potential to be an excellent article.
Good work
Thank you very much! I've made various improvements to it, but I think it may be a little long now to properly expand on the character relationships in the article itself. To this end, I may end up expanding it via a tale or at the very least allowing others the opportunity to do so.
I would like to clarify something: The event isn't exactly a containment breach as it was stored at this site specifically because it resided within a forest, which is the target of the teleportation every time. It specifically teleports to the nearest wooded area, and as that is the area directly above it, it will always manifest somewhere above. As it is not technically leaving the site, and willingly returns the majority of the time, it's not classified as a containment breach. I've made sure to add this to the con-prots though, and added an instance where it manifested outside of the fence in the Notable Advancements section.
I also created a table for various experiments done in an attempt to prevent, then control, then ease the recovery process. Though most of them are failures.
