Before going into some general pointers of the piece, I wanted to say that though your clinical tone is servicable, you veer into being overly-verbose. It is important to note that clinicality does not equal fancy words. Anyway, I'm going to point out the most glaring issues I can spot.
As the anomalous properties of SCP-XXXX require specialized equipment to detect, the existence of SCP-XXXX is common public knowledge, and containment of every SCP-XXXX instance is infeasible, containment procedures are focused on controlling research relating to SCP-XXXX.
This is ONE sentence. I suggest you split it up and streamline it into smaller, more bite-sized sentences.
Especially, proposals involving radiation detection equipment or radiographic analysis of SCP-XXXX instances are to be rejected.
You stated the same thing in the line before, but in different words.
e.g., using fabricated identites and resumes.
e.g. through malicious compliance with bureaucracy or “losing” samples — or outright sabotage.
You don't need to go into specifics here, mostly because we as readers already can guess what you're going to have to do.
Foundation assets in SCP-XXXX-keeping zoos worldwide are to engage in similar obstruction.
Though this is an interesting hook, its worded a little clunkily. I would suggest sometihng like "Foundation assets in zoos containing SCP-XXXX instances are to engage in similar obstruction."
SCP-XXXX is Phascolarctos cinereus, the koala, or rather, its metabolism.
This worind is clunky and non-clinical. I would just have it say "the metabolism of the species Phascolarctos cinereus, or the koala"
radiotrophic.
I had to google this word. I'd include a footnote explaining what it is.
The diet of eucalyptus leaves is not for nourishment, but how SCP-XXXX obtains the catalyzing palladium — palladium is absorbed from soil by the deep roots of the eucalyptus tree and transported into leaves.
Again, this was mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of the description.
I don't feel as if the first addendum really adds anything to the article. The second article is interesting, but it also doesn't add much.
Concept
This article takes the cliche concept of 'what you thought isn't anomalous actually is!' and does something so relatively mundane and inconsequential that it's honestly kind of amusing. I enjoy this as a concept, and it gives drop bears some weird sort of radioactive purpose.
Overall
Though the concept is enjoyable with its mundane premise, it doesn't really do anything for me. There's nothing being done aside from describing how the koalas are radiocative and it doesn't go anywhere interesting with the premise of radioactive koalas.
Additionally, you use a lot of big verbiage and redundant sentences that really weigh down the experience and further sink my feelings towards the article.
Thoughts
I think you have a strong idea with radioactive koalas, but you just need to find something interesting to do with them. What if the Foundation is too late and the Australian government is already aware of this and are using them for some sort of nuclear power plant or something? Maybe weaponize them? Maybe their radiation is the reason the Outback is a desert? Who knows!
Useful Links
Clinical Tone Declassified to help you nail that tone needed for a successful article.
How to Write an SCP
Grammarly.com is a life saver for helping with spelling, grammar, and syntax errors. And it's free!
A song for your hearing pleasure.
