SCP Foundation

The following item will act as a cognitohazard if this message is not read beforehand. SCP-XXXX is unable to directly harm anyone. In all regards it is a regular object besides its cognitohazardous effects.

Besides being a clunky eye-sore, this forewarning spoils the entire article before readers even get to the Item number. Consider the amount of information given here: this SCP is a dangerous cognitohazard that works even when being written about. This effectively makes any narrative build-up pointless, and this forward doesn't build mystery because of how much exposition it provides. There are other articles that do this better. I recommend that you check out SCP-1730 and see how even though the forward notice mentions the presence of cognitohazards, it doesn't give away exactly where or what is causing them like yours does.

Object Class: Euclid

This doesn't really strike me as a Euclid class object. As far as breaking containment itself, it can't. As far as having its effects accidentally spreading out of the cell, it can be easily prevented with a notice outside the door and countered with amnesiacs.

SCP-XXXX is to be kept in a small containment in Block 09-B guarded by 2 armed personnel and a screen that displays a message about the object's properties and relative harmlessness prior to entering.

There's not really a reason to state the number of guards that need to be posted here. For one, it is naturally assumed that every SCP will be put under surveillance and guard unless explicitly told otherwise. Secondly, specifying that there has to be 2 guards implies that having only 1 guard, or 10 guards stationed here will cause a containment breach. All in all, this single sentence is very clunky and bloated. I would recommend cutting this down into two sentences. The first regarding where it is and the second elaborating on the cognitohazard precautions.

Foundation face-scanning technology will be used to assess if those granted access to the room were properly paying attention beforehand.

Face-scanning technology seems rather…silly. Why not just provide a simple questionnaire about SCP-XXXX that individuals have to get completely right before being exposed to SCP-XXXX?

In the event of someone seeing SCP-XXXX without first reading the message, Class-A Amnesiacs are to be administered.

This means that the face-scanner actually has no power of the door-lock. Individuals can just walk past and swipe a key-card. I again recommend using the questionnaire, or at least having a system where the door unlocks only when the subject confirms that they have read up on SCP-XXXX.

Foundation staff will being questioning the original poster and depending on motivation,

"Foundation staff will bring the original poster in for questioning and, depending on motivation,"

DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING ESSAY IF THE PREVIOUS ARTICLES HAVE NOT YET BEEN READ

I see what you're trying to do here. Honestly, I feel that, compared to the problem one at the start of the article, this one has a place. To that end, I recommend checking this out.

SCP-XXXX is a small teacup, measuring 5 inches in diameter.

The Foundation is an international organization. Use centimeters instead.

It is normal in most respects except that is unable to be broken or significantly harmed in any other way.

Harmed doesn't…really make sense considering this is an inanimate object. "Any other way" implies there is one way to break or damage this SCP. I recommend using something along the lines of "it is unable to be broken or damaged by any currently known methods."

The anomalous effects of SCP-XXXX will take place if the teacup is Seen, Touched, or Read about in any specific form prior to being pre-informed of its lack of otherwise noteworthy qualities.

"Seen, touched or read about" should not be capitalized. Having anomalous effects take place sounds awkward. I recommend simply stating that they are triggered when x, y and z happen. Regarding the pre-informed bit, I had a bit of trouble understanding exactly what you meant. As this is something that hinges directly upon the opening disclaimer, which itself is incredibly problematic, I recommend reserving this particular issue for the Brainstorming Forum.

Subjects who read about the teacup in any form

"read, see or touch." Be consistent.

The reason the teacup is believed to be dangerous strongly varies from each report

You state that the consistent reason is because they believe the teacup will destroy the universe. Be consistent.

They will eventually believe that they need to commit suicide in order to defeat the object.

This immediately made me lose interest, and I would downvote based on this alone. We will discuss this in the concept check.

they will report severe mental health issues for their entire lives.

"entire lives" is a bit melodramatic and not really in clinical tone. I recommend simply stating that they will experience perpetual mental health issues. Of course, if this is curable(because of the therapists included in the containment procedures), do mention this.

It is unknown how the foundation acquired the teacup, as all who would have contained it would have been mentally unwell and unable to properly communicate with staff, but records show that it was not in the foundation's care prior to 12/5/1993.

So, while the mentally unwell employees were unable to even communicate to anyone else about this artifact, they were able to log this accurately down to the day of recovery? I don't really feel as though knowing where the teacup comes from contributes much to the article and, for me personally, actually takes a little bit away from it. I would recommend either cutting this out, or forming a distinct narrative purpose for this.

█████, the brand that produces the teacup has been interviewed, and the companies other teacups tested, and have demonstrated no anomalous effects.

Interviewing an entire brand involves talking to every single employee, from janitor to CEO. This is rather ridiculous. I recommend limiting this to officials, designers and factory workers. "Companies" should be "company's" since we are referring to possession and not plural groups.