RPC Authority

We don't need an entire experiment log for one lesser anomalous object.

I have recently reworked this entire log to add in a new element: LO-067 was being tested to determine whether registering it as a researchable phenomenon would be worthwhile. Due to mixed results and a failure to deliver on promises, registering it for further research was deemed to not be worthwhile. Hopefully, this new element explains why there's an experiment log for a Lesser anomalous Object

The concept is promising and I like the idea of experiment logs with lesser anomalies, and the dynamic of the registered phenomena code being something they determine to be needed.

A lot of the article was worded a bit awkwardly, and the ending was very anti-climactic. It doesn't make sense that the Authority wouldn't spend the resources to build a big piece of glass when the potential reward is so high. Also, they could just fucking kill the CSD if it becomes aggressive. There's no issue there.

This document is not uneventful, but not very purposeful either. Its only trick is literal disappointment, and not a gut-wrenching or serious kind, but more like being promised a lollipop and then forgotten about. I figure the ending is supposed to be disappointing, but why? I don't know what I gained from reading this. Though that's an abstract complaint on its own, it's clear that this particular document scarcely attempts to go anywhere at all. It starts and ends in the same place, with only a small mess left over.

The CSD subjects are the only valuable asset this article has, but their potential is unrealized. CSD-0748 has half a line of dialogue, and CSD-2243 is just a prop. I would care to read about the future misadventures of the tiny man and the (urgh) "giantess", and this document would probably be best used to set up such a story, but alas, it never came.

Besides, it's a researcher's job to design creative experiments and uncover useful properties. Why is Sullivan adamant on throwing in the towel after two experiments are inconclusive? It's bizarre that a site director would be so disinterested in science. The assertion that the Authority can't afford to do these experiments makes them seem weak and uninteresting. RPC-125 had a similar conflict about anomaly utilization, but executed it much more effectively, albeit relying basically on comedy to work. I reviewed that article years ago and didn't have the most shining praise for it, but in hindsight it offered more to RPC's world than this document did.

This is probably still among the collaborative pages' better offspring. The lesser anomaly pages have a lot of cruft and are infested with pieces that wouldn't survive anywhere susceptible to deletion, so for this one to go the extra mile and attach itself to a full document is admirable. If it opens the door for better utilization of lesser anomalies by future authors, it might be worthwhile for that alone. It's still mid, though. 3/5