Description: SCP-XXXX is the collective term to define
We don't need to know that SCP-XXXX is a term (unless like… the anomaly is the term "SCP-XXXX"). You can outright say that SCP-XXXX is a bunch of cans of stuff.
ninety-three (93) tin cans of two-hundred and fifty (250)
Again, the number (#) numeration is generally used for extreme precision measurements that can be fatal if misinterpreted, like drug prescriptions. Again, you don't need to do that here.
milliliters of capacity full
A reader will assume that the mL measure is the can's capacity. You can take out that phrase.
of a translucent liquid. All cans are painted in a unremarkable
"an" unremarkable. Also, that's a little subjective. People's definitions of "unremarkable" can vary widely, but if you really must push how unremarkable it is, try something less strong, like "plain".
bright red color
The "bright" kind of contradicts the last word?
with the words 'The Factory' written over it.
Written? Like… with a marker? How is it written? Does it look like a logo, or does it look like a kid wrote their name on it? Not getting a good visualization here.
Chemical analysis concur in tha no
Concurs. Also, proper phrasing would be "Chemical analysis indicates…" because "concur" means to agree, and the point of this sentence is to indicate that the chemical analysis shows something, not so much that it agrees with something.
anomalous substance compose neither the can nor the liquid.
Weird phrasing. You can say "Chemical analysis indicates that neither the cans nor liquid are comprised of anomalous substances."
When human subjects consume SCP-XXXX's liquid,
Why just humans?
they lose any capability of multitasking as well as increase of focus on the last goal they decided to accomplish before the aforementioned consumption.
Again, reads a little weird. At first I thought they lost the multitasking and increase of focus. Also, how would anyone be able to figure this out? Keep in mind that as the author, you know the entire story, but the Foundation needs to have discovered what it knows about the SCP through observation and experimentation. How would someone with no prior knowledge whatsoever of the object, using only experimentation and observation, be able to figure out that this liquid affects someone's ability to multitask?
Subjects show incapability of thinking
Correct phrasing is "incapability to [verb]." or "incapable of"
in anything other than the task at hand,
What if the task at hand is to multitask? What if the task at hand requires multiple aspects, such as ordering a meal while at a restaurant drive-through or dancing or playing an instrument while reading music or… pretty much anything, really? What defines "task at hand"?
often forgetting or ignoring their basic needs (such as eating, sleeping or defecating).
What about breathing?
SCP-XXXX effects vanish when the goal is satisfactorily achieved
Again, how the heck would anyone figure this out? How can anyone determine that the effects "vanish" (nooot exactly scientific here… might want to pick another word). And again, how satisfactory is "satisfactorily"? Is this based on some objective reasoning? The subject's reasoning? What if the goal at hand is something that would take a long time to complete, like building a tower of cards? Also, what if the goal is something that can't really be given an expected time, like sleep? Are we talking qualitative or quantitative satisfaction here?
or after an amount of time proportional to the amount of liquid consumed.
How can anyone figure this out without knowing about it beforehand? Also, you drop this and then never give any more information. Is this stuff dangerous? Can the effects of one can wear off after 2 seconds?
SCP-XXXX have shown to be susceptible to its expiration date, if exceed no anomalous effects manifest.
Where did the expiration date come from? It wasn't mentioned on the can earlier. All I know about how this looks is that it's plain bright red and has the Factory written on it.
Under no circumstance consume SCP-XXXX if the expiration date has been exceed.
This seems like more of a containment thing. Also, "under no circumstance should liquid from SCP-XXXX be consumed after the expiration date." works better. This sentence reads a little weird.
The first 40 SCP-XXXX instances found were recovered from a small supermarket in the city of [REDACTED] the day █/██/20██.
Don't need to redact a name. Just use blackboxes.
Another packaging of 40 instances was found inside a shop in a small town ██ kilometers from [REDACTED] in ██/██/20██. The last 13 instances were found in possession of ████ █████, in [REDACTED] in █/█/20██. None of the owners could identify the supplier.
This is kind of boring, to be honest. It doesn't add anything interesting or new to the story. "They showed up" is a very, very common origin story.
Analysis of the transport routes and geography of the locations
Do supermarkets only get stock from one transport route in the entire history of the shop? Also, if the supplier can't be identified and no one knows when the cans showed up or how, what's the point of checking transport routes for all the normal stuff?
of this findings imply that [DATA EXPUNGED].
You just took out anything that could have been interesting! This is lazy writing. :( There's only so much you can expect your reader to fill in on their own, and at the end of the day, you're the one writing the article, not them. If you have a super cool story aspect, give it to the reader, or at least give them enough hints to figure it out themselves.