| Living: |
Y |
| Sapient: |
Y |
| Sentient |
Y |
We usually don't have a separation between sentient or Sapient like this, especially not in the order (as Sapience explains Sentience). I'd atleast re-order this, though I can't get past shilling my own suggestion on how to work the infoboxes.
optional It moves anywhere we need it to be. Otherwise, it is kept at Research Facility Xi-09.
The "optional" is not supposed to stay in there.
The entity is not to be used to determine the loyalty of every single… employee to the Insurgency.
Ellipsis have no place in a "clinical" document (outside of interview logs and quoted parts, of course).
"What are your dirty little secrets? The things you don't want others to know?"
"Do you, or have you, worked alongside the SCP Foundation?"
Whilst the "little" is the first question is appropriately belittling, I believe it could be used by properly trained subjects to evade revealing their "big" secrets. The second question seems misplaced as we regularly employ Foundation defectors.
The is a 27-year-old Brazilian female with latte-colored skin and black eyes and hair.
"The Item is". Also, personal pet-peeve of mine, don't describe people's complexion through food metaphors (have you ever described somebody caucasian as bacon-coloured?) I recommend differentiating between nationality and ethnicity, though the latter in itself is not of much value when trying to identify a person (which is the main point of the description here). I personally use the Fitzpatrick scale complexion, as it is based in actual dermatological practice. As you mention her birth country the next sentence, you can probably scratch it here.
Physical anomalous properties include a tatoo of a hawk on her back. She says she has always had it. Birth records show this to be true.
Not sure if I would use the term "anomalous" and "tattoo" here. (As a tattoo on a baby would have stretched unrecognizable to an adult). Also, is it an abstract (lineart perhaps?) eagle, or a more realistic depiction? (Also, it's "tattoo".)
standard torture interrogation
I see what you did there, but have you ever heard of enhanced interrogation?
It has been in vain.
As an isolated sentence somewhat too prosaic to me.
There are, however, conditions that must first be fulfilled. […] As a result, paranoid individuals who refuse to be touched are not to come into contact with this entity.
This is usually what we put into the usage section. Also, you misspelled "paranoid subjects must be restrained to allow her to establish physical contact" there.
Containment Protocols: […]
Okay, all of this should also go to the usage section. Also, I disagree with the Foundation-esque "lock it in a cell" approach here; depending on her own loyalty, she can either be treated like normal crew in the personnel quarters, or is considered a prisoner. In both cases, you can just leave her getting fed as an obvious implication (in the same way you do with access to personal hygiene, for example).
Incident 001: OPEN?
English Translation: OPEN?
We usually don't keep foreign language stuff around like that. It has no value to people who don't speak the language, and it has no value for people who do because it is just redundant.
I believe the RPC has some sweet standard to signify portions of dialogue or attached materials were translated (which i wanted to blatantly rip-off for quite a while), you might want to use those.
On another note, please put Transcripts into a dedicated div (we usually use quote blocks starting with > for this, but you're free to design it differently) to make it easier to read.
Analiana: Great. First, what's the secret you don't want anyone to know? Something…something you would take to your grave with you?
This is a rather bold move; were there no other people around during the interview? Starting like this seems a risky move to me, especially from somebody implied to be smart. I'm also surprised her victim didn't tried to flee after answering his first question.
without wondering what se'd look like without clothes.
Typo
She expressed disgust atthe sight of the man
Typo
| Writing materials are to be provided for a novel. |
DENIED |
I already mentioned my take on the treatment of "valued employees" above, and therefore disagree with the plot point here entirely, however even under your premise, this seems like a wasted opportunity. The Insurgency is not above snooping in diaries, and I wonder what the "Dirty Laundry Folders" could learn from her writting. Especially since I see no tangible harm she could do with writing materials.
