My next bit is about paragraph length. I accidentally, yet conveniently gave you a good example in my last paragraph. That paragraph was a bit too long. Two lines under that is the perfect length. The previous paragraph is about the maximum length you can make a paragraph with these margins, without making it extremely hard to parse, or to be intimidating. The paragraphs in your SCP are very large and very hard to parse. The description alone could be broken into at least four good-sized paragraphs.
Your containment procedures feel a bit superfluous here, especially the first part. When describing a chamber, you should only describe the bits that are absolutely relevant to the SCP itself. Describing the thickness of the steel and the exact dimensions of the area is irrelevant to the general public, and just comes off as boring. ("If this happens, the personnel are to be given a maximum of 3 weeks to make peace before they are put down." is also another example of melodramatic tone, not clinical tone. "Make peace" is a very fluffy way to say "this dude is going to die so he should get his shit together")
[Collapsible About Formatting]
FORMATTING:
So, this is something that really bugs me about this, the formatting is pretty ugly. I would likely attribute this to a lack of understanding of Wikidot markdown (not your fault, it's kinda hard). First of all, you should put the first addendum in a text box. You can do this by putting a > (the space after it is very important) symbol next to the first word in the paragraph.
This is what this looks like. I also italicized it with a double forward slash on both ends of the sentence because I like putting quotes in text boxes with italics and it's generally a nice looking thing to do.
The contact log is the worst offender of looking generally really ugly, which detracts from my enjoyment of the writing, and even makes me understand it less in this case. First, put all of this in a few text boxes. I recommend splitting it up between dates.
You can use the same text boxes between breaks by adding a > inside of the line break.
Like so. Make sure you put a space after the > in the line break or else it won't work.
If you don't put a > there it breaks into a new text box, like so.
Okay, so this next part is definitely the most important bit in literary terms. Write out who is saying the line before the line is said. I have no clue who is who in this story. It makes it crazy hard to read.
What are you doing here?
Oh wait, I know you!
We met in college right?
This example I made up makes no sense because anybody could be saying any line. It could be back and forth, it could be one person saying every line, it could be a combination of the two.
Stallmantic: What are you doing here?
Stallmantic: Oh wait, I know you!
Yosherdosher: We met in college right?
This makes so much more sense and clearly conveys to the reader who is saying what. Also, bold names to make them stand out.
Demarcate all of your narrator lines (or any line that isn't spoken by a character and just says an action) in italics. That's just how it's typically formatted here. The <> looks a little odd.
While I mentioned that the containment procedures were too dramatic to be seen as clinical, the contact logs suffer the same issue. These logs do not need to be clinical, as they are dialogue, obviously, but they do have to be realistic. Nobody talks like this. It's not egregiously bad but a lot of it is a bit melodramatic, especially the ending line.
He just said, “you cannot contain him,” sir.
I would imagine every sentient SCP ever has said this at some point, and yet look how contained they are. I feel like this is supposed to come off as foreboding but it more feels silly. Basically, everything needs to be toned down a little, as you are sort of sacrificing believability (relative to other SCPs) for fluff. Write dialogue how normal people talk.
Conceptually, I have only one real problem with this idea and that's how IQ is approached. IQ is not really a measurement of intelligence. The concept that IQ and intelligence are a 1:1 correlation is a societal misconception. IQ is more of a measure of how well you can learn things. Yeah, a high IQ might make you have an advantage in maths, but an uneducated person with an IQ of 230 is not smarter than somebody who just graduated college with an IQ of 90. The way this is approached needs to be altered as not an intelligence booster, but a learning booster of some sorts. (Also, 300 IQ would not make you go insane, theoretically, a man named James Sidis had an IQ up there.)
