Containment Protocols
I suggest you detail the procedure in an addendum and in a quote block so it looks a bit "more official" and since this information would be better provided in a section of its own.
About said procedure, while I was okay with the first DATA EXPUNGED, I can't say the same for the next sentence:
This must happen simultaneously or new individuals affected by RPC-351’s properties will forcibly take the place of the old individuals, even going so far as to [DATA EXPUNGED] on the [DATA EXPUNGED] of previous individuals.
Our Writer's Guide specifically warns against this, it can mean a vast variety of things and your reader may end up more confused than intrigued by what could be behind those redactions. Some may even take it as a joke and reflect badly on your article ratings. So, consider editing those out.
The blood gathered in agents’ pans is to be [DATA EXPUNGED] by said agents once reaching capacity.
Again here, is the redaction needed? Read this whole procedure paragraph imagining the redactions as censor bleeps. Would you think this section was well written and provided information for the containment of this thing? Remember containment protocols are what you would read when something breached containment to attempt to re contain it, be as informative as possible.
Since the anomaly teleports to random locations, I suggest you add to the containment protocols the constant surveillance to this anomaly as to guarantee the locating of the anomaly as soon as possible to enact the relevant procedure.
Description
██ minutes after reaching full capacity, the signal will be so loud that hearing protection will be rendered obsolete and individuals will be rendered deaf regardless. In addition, [DATA EXPUNGED] will start to form above RPC-351, marking the point of no return. Through [DATA EXPUNGED] can be seen [DATA EXPUNGED], which will [DATA EXPUNGED] after ██ minutes of said [DATA EXPUNGED] forming. After it is in the physical world, [DATA EXPUNGED], rendering the site lost with no survivors. RPC-351 will relocate shortly afterwards.
These are just too many redactions, it leaves me with nothing, no information, no clues as to what to imagine happens at this point. I am left wondering what you wanted to mean. Reduce the number of redactions in this paragraph alone.
The only requirement appears to be that there be enough people to trigger [DATA EXPUNGED].
Again, unnecessary. Label this Event, detail it in an addendum. This way it looks sloppy and as if you couldn't find how to finish this sentence. This could reflect on your ratings. Take the extra time to think up the "Event XXX-XX" Addendum, it will be more rewarding than just redacting it.
Discovery
All these redactions in this section do not help, your readers can put anything in those blanks and come up with an entirely different idea of what you wanted to express here. Lead your reader to imagine this, add clues and only add redactions for the most impacting element you could have on this section.
Addendum
While the chart is a good visual aid to organize the information and help your reader refresh from reading plain text, all the redactions ruin it. I am left with a very bare bones article when reading all these redactions. It doesn't add an element of mystery, it doesn't make me want to imagine what horrors could be behind those redactions. It just looks sloppy.
Commentary
You have a good idea here, fix the redaction problem so you can add more flesh to what could be a quite impacting idea. Spend the extra time thinking up what could substitute those redactions and you will not regret it.