SCP Foundation

I really liked this in the forums, and it has been tightened further, which is great (especially the changes to the first transcript).

I still have some misgivings, the biggest of which is that I don't understand how the Foundation can know so much about the mechanism of the anomaly, but still need to interview Timmons to find out the trigger. Nevertheless, upvoted.

Two minor suggestions:

• now that Timmons is interviewed by Harmon, the phrase "you and I were investigating…" doesn't make as much sense as before. Perhaps "Fredricks and I…"?
• if you really wanted to twist the knife, perhaps have a line at the end of the last interview noting that Timmons requested to be housed in the same Temporary Holding Cell as -042, and was refused.

I like this, so upvote. I have only one issue that isn't already pointed out. Why is it Safe and not Euclid? Buildings that are anomalies are always Euclid (not all times though). Its effects are also always harmful. Tell me if I missed something in the article that makes it Safe instead of Euclid. It would be appreciated.

I like the way the story builds. Sort of sad, sort of creepy.
+1.

Enjoyable and heart-feeling. I think it hits me harder because I recently lost my dog by a car a few months ago.

the human subject becomes unable to die upon leaving SCP-2279.

What what what? They become immortal? How has this been tested?

I'm not really feeling this… I haven't had a pet die recently, which maybe why I'm neutral on it (I recall a similar heartstring tugger recently where the comments were a wall of "my dog died last month, so I'm giving you +1")

Elements of this seem designed to elicit that kind of response, I.E. the off-tone interview log (" agent speaks slowly and carefully" etc). Why would that need to be in the log, unless to get it across to the out-of-universe reader that This Is A Sad Bit.

Neutral vote, and I feel for anyone who's lost a pet recently. It ain't nice, but the sadness is a mark of the bond you had.

I want to like this one. It's well-written and thoughtful. For myself, it's just not hitting the right spot to make me connect with the characters in the sort of visceral way that I think is required to really enjoy this article. Still, as I said, it's well-executed, just doesn't do it for me. Neutralvote.

I like it. Couple thoughts. One, I second the thought that "Human subject becomes unable to die" needs more elaboration. And I feel some additional notes detailing what happened to timmerman afterward would be useful. Can she still be consumed by the anomoly if the pet is seperated from her or does having the two in holding cells protect them from the effects?

Otherswise, well done.

My issues with this one:

• I dislike compulsion effects as a general rule. I feel they are a way around doing the heavy lifting of giving characters and events proper context and motivation, and are sort of a cheap way to a tragic/sad ending. I can expound in much, much greater detail on this point if anyone wishes.
• I'm so very tired of the metacommentary on how heartless the Foundation is. The business with the thing not liking being addressed by a number felt forced and unnecessary. Also, given that you have a Foundation agent just straight walking into a harmful anomaly and going "hey sup", they're going to draw some line of formality about names? Really?
• For that matter, why are staff put into this thing? The containment procedures state that only Foundation personnel can enter, but there's no justification for that. Which makes it read to me as purely a contrivance for that last interview.

This is very clearly an overt attempt to deliver a cat-based feels missile, which makes it feel manipulative and also means that the narrative is constructed with only that purpose in mind, leaving aside matters like how much actual sense it makes.

I like this. The fact that things look creepy from the outside, then get better when someone's watching is a unique touch. That said, it's missing two major details: What are the -B's, and what happened to Timmons? (Did she go through the ownership anomaly? I feel it's very important to state it, even just yea or nay.)

The subject will often not acknowledge that the entity's health appears to be improving as well as their own failing health.

"as well as" should be "nor"

I feel like the concept is good, but the execution and characters are were this SCP falls flat. For instance, if they know they cannot leave in some circumstances without someone accepting a 2279-a, why would they not bring a D-class with them, and risk two agents lives? Additionally Timmons and Fredericks dialogue feels a bit lazy, it seems more like the dialogue you would see on a buddy cop detective show than a cold and clinical interview. I could understand maybe on the side of Timmons, but I still feel like they would have plenty of training in how to handle a situation like this, or at least know to keep completely quiet and allow the lead agent to do the talking. If this agent was so inexperienced, I don't believe they would have been brought on to any humanoid containment site, no matter the object class.

And a note on your formatting, you should probably remove the first footnote. If I understand what you were saying correctly, then adding a note saying non-human observation methods of the anomaly do not trigger what humans being present will trigger is just redundancy. Like saying, "while humans are not in x, z does not occur, this also does not trigger due to cameras within x." Well it shouldn't, because a camera is not a human. I would instead suggest removing the footnote.

If you can improve this article, I will change my vote, until then down vote.