SCP Foundation

Hello! I wrote a draft about an idea that scares me and would love some feedback before I consider posting on the main site.

Please find my draft on the first tab here:
http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/erazm

Feedback on any aspect is welcome, but these may be some of the more important points to consider:

- Is this too similar to something that's currently in the wiki?
- How's the length? Is the "testing" bit too long?
- Is it trying to do "too much" with the two security level reversals? Is it predictable in an unsatisfying way?
- How do you feel about a site director declaring something Keter when it's (apparently) not trying to break containment? Is that too extreme?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration!

On phone, so brief.

Good draft! Enjoyed.
Have not seen similar.
Test a little too long. Easily fixed.
Reversals not too much. Not too predictable, only slightly.
Keter inappropriate. Safe =/= no danger. Safe = no danger if containment procedures followed.

Other issues:

On the whole excellent.

Am poor, ignorant reviewer. Get 2nd (better) opinion.

I've seen a few 'decoy document' setups, but I really liked its use here. My biggest issue is pretty much the discovery of its properties. How did they even guess what it's capable of? If you could establish a reasonable method for them to have deduced its properties prior to using it, (and if you fix the 'upper ceiling' line, which read a little awkward) this is something I can get behind.

I also feel like the fact that it works unloaded is a bit of a cop out. It takes a little bit of gravity off the last collapsible knowing that for the infiltrator, there's nothing at stake. All they need to do is 'join' a rival Org, pop out the skip, click and done. If it only worked while loaded, the stakes for that individual would be much higher, and would strengthen the seriousness of the request.