SCP Foundation

No personnel are to interact with SCP-XXXX except those already altered by its secondary effect or established to not be susceptible.

I believe you are referring to personnel who SCP-XXXX does not call to approach. The way this is worded implies that there are those who SCP-XXXX touches who are immune to the effects. If this is what you mean, note that you do not indicate in the description that people can resist this. Furthermore, I don't really get why personnel would be allowed to interact with SCP-XXXX at all.

Following incident XXXX-1, all affected personnel are to be allowed weekly visits to SCP-XXXX, and affected D-class personnel are not to be terminated without prior approval from O5 Command.

First off, the footnote isn't really necessary since you state later on that SCP-XXXX considers affected personnel to be her children.

Secondly, why are weekly visits permitted. According to the incident, SCP-XXXX began to affect other personnel only because one of her children was killed. There's no indication that she enters a dangerously distressed state when just left alone.

Thirdly, it doesn't really make sense to have O5 command making these decisions. O5 is responsible for worldwide Foundation operations. It would be like an HR Manager asking for the CEO's permission to interview someone with a tattoo. In your case, I feel like it would be far more practical to simply have both SCP-XXXX's research team, and those killing off the affected D-Class synchronize their respective actions.

In the event of such a termination being necessary, other affected personnel are to be relocated to SCP-XXXX's containment cell and all other personnel within 50 meters of SCP-XXXX's cell are to be relocated outside this radius until exactly 2 hours after termination

Has the radius expanded beyond 30 meters? If it has, and thus can continue to do so, far more drastic procedures are needed. If not, then this is a bit much, considering how much room and hallway space/traffic is going to be disrupted. Why 2 hours exactly? If you want to be this precise then there has to be a reason for it. Does something bad happen if personnel come back into the radius in 2 hours and 1 minute? Furthermore, remember that in your incident, it only took 45 minutes for SCP-XXXX to calm down.

To be quite honest, I'm not a fan of these special containment procedures because they're too affectionate on the Foundation's part. The primary, operational concern regarding SCP-XXXX is that when it's distressed, it can affect anyone. Why wouldn't the Foundation just bind SCP-XXXX in place in the center of a room bigger than her radius and sedate it when it enters a state of distress. It's much colder, but it's much more practical than these weekly visits, O5 authorizations for D-Class termination, and the evacuation of an 7853.98 square meter area of the facility every single time such an emotional state occurs. Too much is being given to your SCP at the cost of Foundation efficiency. I would recommend going over how the Foundation is cold, but not cruel again and then going over your procedures again from the point of view of a site administrator trying to manage dozens, if not hundreds of anomalies.

SCP-XXXX is a middle-aged woman previously residing in ███████, Canada

This reads a bit awkwardly. I would recommend "SCP-XXXX is a middle aged woman who previously resided in (location)"

When in the immediate vicinity of SCP-XXXX, human subjects invariably report feeling safe and appear to trust SCP-XXXX unconditionally.

What defines immediate vicinity? Will subjects feel this if they are 2 feet away but seperated with glass? Does the effect occur whether or not subjects are looking at SCP-XXXX. While cell dimensions are better off being vague, the mechanism for SCP really needs to be made crystal clear for the Foundation.

SCP-XXXX is generally amiable and cooperative with foundation personnel, but upon sighting a small percentage of subjects

Foundation needs to be capitalized.
"upon sighting a small percentage of subjects" is a bit problematic. The use of "percentage" almost demands that you provide one, or an estimate at least. I believe what you were trying to say is that only a few personnel get 'chosen.' This can be made more clear. For example:
"…cooperative with Foundation personnel. However, SCP-XXXX will occasionally 'select' someone experiencing its primary affects and (rest of sentence here)."

it requests for them to "come closer". Given the primary effect, subjects will invariably comply with this request.

Be aware that you have created a compulsive SCP. It may not be explicit, but it may as well be. This site has a lot of compulsive SCPs. However, the main issue with compulsion(in a lot of cases) is that they simply aren't interesting. Effects being triggered based on free will are interesting, more so for harmful effects triggered by free will. Compulsion removes the human aspect of the effect and more or less just turns the victim into an automaton that's screwed by no choice of their own. Furthermore, this statement doesn't state that it's impossible to stop the secondary effect from occurring. A subject can still be stopped by someone else physically restraining them, or by placing a barrier between them and SCP-XXXX.

Upon contact, SCP-XXXX's secondary effect will manifest, slightly altering the appearance of the subject and causing a significant alteration of identity, generally consisting of a change in personality, mannerisms, names, and often pronouns, although the subject's memories remain entirely intact.

I didn't really understand any of this because none of it was described. Does the subject become younger or older? Do subjects adopt the identity of someone else specifically, or just another identity in general? If they adopt a new identity, how do their memories stay the same? I recommend seriously revising this portion so that it conveys an image.

claim to have a better understanding of themselves

Once again, what does this mean? Vague statements like these, which can be interpreted in many ways, don't hold clinical tone. Keep in mind that these documents almost always have to sound as though they are written by a detached Foundation researcher, no matter the horrific or hilarious or happy nature of the SCP.

The description makes no mention of SCP-XXXX's tertiary effect, which occurs when it enters a distressed state. This is likely the most important aspect of SCP-XXXX since it can affect subjects outside its cell. Since the procedures have been revised to account for it, it makes no sense that the description hasn't been similarly updated in the wake of the incident.

█-██-20██

I really don't recommend doing this. This doesn't convey competent redacting on the part of Foundation censors, but it does convey the author's desire to tell readers that this event took place 'sometime recently.' I would recommend providing the full date if no security breach can occur by knowing the date, or by redacting all of it, if knowing the date does present a security hazard or is unnecessary.

The two remaining subjects of SCP-XXXX's alteration effect appear distressed and request to be allowed to visit SCP-XXXX to provide comfort. The requests are granted upon an executive decision

I feel like the Foundation would have used knock-out gas on SCP-XXXX first before allowing it to unite with its children. The Foundation had just learned of a concerning new ability of SCP-XXXX and now they were being presented with another event that hadn't manifested before. The Foundation had no idea to know for certain if uniting the subjects with XXXX would worsen or better the situation.

SCP-XXXX's "children" request "just one more hour" to mourn, which is also granted

Again, we see the Foundation once again appeasing SCP-XXXX. The effects on staff have worn off and I'm fairly certain the Foundation would now be focused on making sure SCP-XXXX never makes another 'child,' and is never capable of incapacitating staff, ever again. I would recommend focusing on the Foundation's actions in this piece and determining which ones are cold for the sake of efficiency, which ones are cruel for no reason, and which ones are appeasing at the cost of efficiency.

SCP-XXXX containment procedures modified to account for this event. Proposal of weekly visits for SCP-XXXX's "children" is awaiting evaluation granted.

Again, my primary concern is 'why?' This event triggered because of an affected subject's death, not loneliness, and there's no indication that SCP-XXXX's personality has changed as a result of the incident(the description still states that it is amiable).

I'm not exactly sure why the incident report is written in the present tense. The present tense would make sense if there are timestamps littered around but there are not. It would make more sense to have this written in past tense as a report.

This interview sounds fairly straightforward. This is strange considering you state that people feel unconditionally trusting and safe around SCP-XXXX. This feels like a missed opportunity to actually portray SCP-XXXX's effects in "real time" as opposed to the description, and would contribute to both the ability and the character.