SCP Foundation

First off, I would recommend a less strict containment procedure. I think a standard containment locker would do just fine, and because of it's properties, just mention it needs to be shielded from sight. Saying it needs to be wrapped in paper is unnecessary detail. And termination for anyone trying to access is a bit strict. Punishment is probably assumed when accessing a locked-away SCP, and it doesn't account for mistakes. I mean, even if the personnel in question was a member of a hostile GOI or just had malevolent intent, I would think the foundation would rather find out why they were trying to get at it rather than just killing him.

I feel like the second and third paragraph of the description could be compressed a bit. It all felt a bit repetitious. See if you can summarize and organize it some more, such as placing the query-response tests in one sentence.

Paragraph 5 looses the tone a bit. "Loud throaty cries" should be at least be put in quotes, as the observers are the ones phrasing it in that matter. I almost feel like an interview log would work really well here; a researcher interviewing an observer about a removal attempt from a third subject.

Paragraph 6 probably could use a header, an addendum or recovery report, as it feels better separate from the rest of the description. Also, data expunged and redacted does not need to be bolded. I do recommend though, to at least write what actually happened in the data expunged and redacted (not included in the final draft), because in its current state, it seems a bit awkwardly put in. Also, data expunged and redacted are not interchangeable, as described here.

For the documents, you should indent them to appear in boxes using ">". Check wiki syntax.

One last thing I would add is that articles relating to AWCY mostly follows a specific pattern. The inclusion of the phrase is usually saved until the end, to act as the big climax as the reader reaches the end. I think that would really help the article to not drop the "he stands because he is cool." so soon.

Overall, I think its an ok concept, but not interesting enough in its own right. That's fine, because so many SCPs are like that, and good writing saves them. This can be a great SCP if you implement the AWCY as the climax and write some good dialogue for an interview log.

Toodles!

1)

By order of O5-█, no testing is permitted at this time.

I would just say "No testing is permitted at this time." Query whether this is important enough to get O5 notice.

2)

When he tried to force her to turn towards him as they waited for first responders, she [DATA EXPUNGED]

I suggest removing the expungement here. We already know the basics of what she did - it was violence. And it wasn't superhuman violence, so it's probably not all that scary. My personal preference would be for her to to knock the friend away (or knock them out), and then resume watching the statue once he was no longer a threat, or that she used force to get the friend to look at the statue. Although I don't know how the Foundation could know that after the fact - a problem I'll leave to your ingenuity.

3) I can see that a lot of work has gone into writing the interview, but it doesn't tell the reader anything new. And it begs the question of how the subject avoided seeing the statue. I don't think you lose anything by removing it entirely.

4) I would also delete the third of the three notes (if you do, don't forget to amend the reference in the Addendum). Anything you like from it can be added to the end of the previous note, which I much prefer. And I would prefer to have that noted signed off with the "You'll never be cool" line from your previous draft - I think that's sufficient reference to AWCY for even a moderately experienced SCP reader.

1. All the suggestions from psul unless otherwise addressed.
2. A little bit of more official terminology used (is contusion realistic in this situation? Would concussion work better?).
3. A lot of addition to the interview log to make it more relevant and interesting (lots of character vocal idiosyncrasies as well).
4. A little fleshing out of the second document, as well as putting the documents in their own addendum.
5. A whole lot of tightening and general tone improvement.