The chamber is to be furnished with a felt couch, coffee table, Holy Bible, tea set, and electric kettle. Due to SCP-XXX's cooperative and peaceful nature, only one armed guard is to be stationed at the entrance of the entity's containment cell.
So I understand that some of these are not actually required for containment but rather rewards for good behavior. That being said, removing the felt couch will be inconvenient but not result in a containment breach. I believe this can be moved to the description or treated simply as a feature of the cell if you keep this in this section: "the chamber is currently furnished with (insert stuff here)." The one guard thing is redundant because its assumed that this SCP will be placed under guard, with severity of said guard being proportional to the threat of the SCP. If you want to stress that this is a lower-security SCP, I recommend instead using "SCP-XXXX needs only minimum security" but this itself is a little risky, personally. As far as "due to its cooperative nature," I also recommend cutting this since the Foundation assumes that everything in the containment procedures are there for a reason.
SCP-XXXX is a member of an unknown species of Hemiptera
This was a bit of a sticking point for me simply because Hemiptera is an order encompassing up to 80,000 insect species. Even if its an unknown species, I believe it would help if you at least provide a comparative description to its closest appearing relative.
SCP-XXXX's prime anomalous property are the mind-reading and memory altering effects it has on humans who interact with it.
This is a bit too declerative. I recommend instead jumping right to the chase with "SCP-XXXX possesses mind-altering and reading capabilities, which thus far have only been used on humans who interact with it."
As far as the addenda go, I would question the latter's cross-link and the former's accepted requests. For example, while one of the later requests was accepted on the basis of good behavior, no such justification is given for many of the other accepted requests. Some readers may be averse to accepting requests entirely. I recommend focusing on justifying why the Foundation feels it is necessary to accept to some of these a little bit more. The interview log seems to be heavily reliant on another SCP, whereas the cat was just a mention. Personally, I'm conflicted on this matter. For now I would recommend against using another SCP and instead using…say a bully from the subject's childhood if only to work around the cross-link risk.
Regarding concept, I'd say there's a foundation. However, I do believe this needs to be developed more from a narrative standpoint as the first addenda is more or less character testimony and the second is shaky because it relies on the reader's knowledge of another SCP.
