Gave you a quick read since I'm clearing out backlog in the forums. Here are my thoughts:
Formatting is a little… ehh. I don't know why you have so many collapsibles, especially given that some of them only have a small amount of text in a quote box. You might as well just put them in the main article body. It looks like your interview dialogue doesn't have spaces between speakers; remember to add a space after the chevron > mark so the line spaces show up. If you still have trouble figuring that out, let me know and I can fix them for you.
Admittedly, the "Dr. Fynegan" character kind of breaks the article for me. The crossed-out bit at the start of containment seems pretty unprofessional (note: the whole "lol the scientists just keep SCP objects on their desks, since that's totally safe hurrdurr" containment notes might have been popular 10+ years ago, but they're just silly and hard to take seriously nowadays) and the fact that the guy wants to classify a pretty much totally-normal person as a sub-designation for an SCP just because they said something suspicious seems like overkill. Keep them as a Person of Interest maybe, but if they're not anomalous or directly affected by/affecting an SCP object, there's no need for the sub-designation. Also the entirety of the "any personnel caught attempting to take SCP-3XXX for a "joyride" will be severely reprimanded" part can just be taken out. It comes off as "we ARE professional, guys, come on" but the fact that there needed to be such a warning in the first place just sort of hammers in the lack of professionalism.
I'm also kind of skeptical that the Foundation managed to figure out all the activation triggers. Keep in mind that as the author, you know the entire story, but the Foundation needs to have discovered what it knows about the SCP object through observation and experimentation. You'll need to convince your reader that someone with no prior knowledge whatsoever of the anomaly managed to somehow figure out (not magically know!) all the information you've got in the article.
I don't really know about this, sorry. Most of it comes off as silly, the rest is just kind of jumbled stats knowledge. Did you happen to get the concept checked in the Ideas and Brainstorming forum before starting to draft?
