Lets see what we have here…
- Special Containment Procedures are in order, and genuinely make me interested in reading the description, so kudos there.
- I can understand why the Foundation would blackbox the location of the anomaly (though personally I'm not a fan of blackboxing locations in general), but I think you do yourself no favors by blackboxing the percentage of recognition events that become induction events. I would recommend using the actual number.
- Same goes for the blackboxing of the yeas of research. This is potentially interesting information. You do yourself no favors by removing it from the reader. Same with the percentage of people susceptible to double induction events, years of containment, and number of site directors. Black boxing should serve a purpose, not act as a decorative sprinkle for the SCP article cake.
- I dig the treatment of XXXX-1 instances. To really give it the official look, maybe throw in a nod of Ethics Committee approval for the current procedures, as well as a number of the current amount of XXXX-1 instances in containment. This of course is bonus round, but may make this section of the article come to life a little more.
- Again with the blackboxing on the incident log. I can understand why the foundation would censor the current location of this SCP, but you go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard with the censorship on this section. I'd include the timeline dates if I was you, and the locations of previous XXXX sites. Again, this is potentially interesting information to the reader, and it comes across as clumsy/lazy to simply blackbox it.
Overall, I dig the effects of this SCP. Its simple, but creepy. Clean out a good chunk of those blackboxes, and you'd have my upvote. As is, I would neutral vote.