SCP Foundation

Dr. Rosenburg is what's behind that [REDACTED]. The foundation has no reason to protect his name. his assistant has nothing to be protected from either. Yes, other authors have blacked out their avatar's name. Many of those articles aren't very highly rated, even the older ones.

I think it comes down to things that irritate the reader. Blackboxing both names all the way through the dialogue hurt my eyes. BBes, being a solid spot as opposed to a letterform, drag the eye to it. You have to fight to recover where in that line you were. Look up "eye trail" for some ideas.

The line on when to expunge can be a fine one. Too much, and you leave the reader in the dark. Too little, you can spoil your mechanic.

May I recommend using pronouns when it comes to your characters? Amanda Blackbox doesn't need to be spelled out every time. It can be Ms. or Mrs. after the first one, and reads much smoother.

SCALE. 100m is a LARGE hole. Considering a "normal" office room is 4m high. So essentially there is a gaping chasm spanning multiple floors. Or is the room 100m tall? That kind of space would be reserved or designed for very specific containment.

And why body parts? That serves no purpose outside of gore, as there is nothing to make that connected to anything.

Overall, I think you're trying to do too much with this. The core concept is a filing cabinet what disappears people. Why does there have to be a monster? We learn very little about the SCP device we are trying to contain, and instead get vague references to a BIG, UGLY MONSTER. From a RW standpoint, the side project would be in a completely different report; the one security is writing up about the breach, and who's responsible. Doesn't gel with the report it's shoehorned into. This would be better as a tale.

Details of SCP-XXXX, including location and description, are on a strictly need-to-know basis.

This goes without saying. That's just general operational security. You don't tell people things they don't need to know. Even disregarding opsec, there's just too many things.

One (1) guard is to be stationed outside the doorway, with key to unlock the door firmly kept on his or her person.

Unless there's a good reason for specifying the number of guards later on, this is unnecessary.
I'm not sure how "firmly kept" differs from "kept" in any meaningful sense.
"with key" should be "with the key"

SCP-XXXX is a 1.6 m tall filing cabinet with 3 drawers on top of one another. SCP-XXXX appears to be made of sheet metal commonly found as the material that makes other filing cabinets.

You can just say "SCP-X appears to be a normal 1.6m tall filing cabinet, with three drawers."

Anything living that touches it, even with protective gear, causes that living thing to vanish, leaving any other possessions behind, including clothes and valuables.

Your sentence structure is kind of bad here.
"Anything living that touches it vanishes, even if protective gear is used. Anything the living thing was carrying or holding, including clothes, is left behind."

In addition, attempts to move SCP-XXXX from it's location have failed, because all attempts with machines created to lift heavy objects have been unable to lift SCP-XXXX. It is believed SCP-XXXX has been modified to be immovably heavy.

That should be "its location"
If SCP-X was that heavy, it would likely cause structural issues for the building. It's more likely that it's just immovable.

Researchers traced the anomaly to the filing cabinet, and had the office quarantined and most of the evacuated area safe again.

This is kind of a run on sentence that stops making sense halfway through.
" and most of the evacuated area safe again. " doesn't make sense.

Details of SCP-XXXX, including location and description, are on a strictly need-to-know basis.

This works better in the containment procedures, without the bold and underline.

One (1)

You don't need to do this. This kind of thing is typically best done when talking about medicine or chemicals, where misinterpretation means catastrophe. You wouldn't say that "Two (2) green apples and five (5) yellow apples were placed in three (3) ten (10) pound cartons". It slows down the flow of the sentence, can be a huge pain for people to read (I know I have to mentally adjust my thinking every time I come across this because it can get confusing), and doesn't add anything. This is most common in old articles from days gone by; you'll rarely come across this thing now, and people tend to stop reading articles for this alone (like I do), unless it's really damn good.

SCP-XXXX is made of sheet metal commonly found as the material that makes other filing cabinets.

You haven't described the metal at all, and now your readers are confused because you just said "SCP-XXXX is made of a thing that makes up other things". If your reader didn't know it in the first place, this doesn't help.

Through research, it has been discovered that

You don't need this; it's implied.

"distinguished" and "in Foundation standards, highly-educated"

You don't need any of this, unless there's a relevant reason for this beyond "Look how cool this guy is!".

, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]

So at the top, you say information about this is on a need-to-known basis, then you give us the location of where this thing is specifically located. That means the reader assumes that, in-universe, this document is being read by someone with all the relevant information. So either don't redact anything, or get rid of the stuff that's redacted, like names. Otherwise, it makes you look lazy for redacting because you can't think of something to put there.

I'll touch on the interview in a separate collapsible.

Upon reaching the bottom of the staircase, Task Forces discovered a small room approximately 1 meter by 1 meter.

You realize how small that is, right? 1 meter is slightly bigger than three feet. That's hardly even a room at that point.

The soldiers discovered a glass panel looking into a large tank, 10 times the size of the room the soldiers were in, and was reinforced with a titanium-steel alloy. A ten meter tall hole was discovered on the right side of the tank, allowing sunlight to flood in.

So the 1 meter room had a glass panel that looked into a large tank, that was 10 times the size of the room the soldiers were in? And the task forces could determine, just by looking, that the tank had a 10 meter "tall" hole in it? This makes no sense. Were you able to properly visualize the dimensions of this?

definitely lived

Bad tone. You'd remove definitely.

The Factory and other Groups of Interest are to be looked into for relation to this event, as a major breach in security may be in place.

Why would they think this? Why The Factory specifically?

Reading this aloud to myself, these guys don't sound like actual, convincing people.

Ms. Bryce: Spare the formalities, ████. I know what's going on here. I heard about the filing cabinet.

Knowing what this interview is gonna be about, how does she start from snarky and defiant to scared at the flip of a coin? There's not even an impression of her faking this, because you give us zero indication. And starting from:

J. ████: Alright. Did you know about SCP-XXXX's anomalous properties before the incident?

To:

J. ████: Can you explain?

This interviewer doesn't even sound competent at their job. They're not playing 20 Questions, they're trying to get valuable information about this anomaly from someone. If someone is giving yes or no answers, they're gonna keep pressing, not just move on.

He had some book, and I'm not sure if it was a magic enchantment, or if it was something from what we call science.

This sounds corny, and not like something someone would say. It feels like a way to arbitrarily add fear.

(Ms. Bryce becomes petrified, as if with fear)

This definitely feels like a way to arbitrarily add fear. The shift to fear is so sudden here, when before she was cocky. It's not realistic, and it's a cheap way to add emotion to your character.

but there was a hidden reason.

Also corny.

Ms. Bryce: I can't say. I know that the SCP Foundation has all sorts of horrible monsters, but this… this was beyond what I was prepared for.

I don't believe this. It also feels like a cheap way to not describe your monster.