RPC Authority

RPC-004-1 and RPC-004-2 are to be placed no less than 8m from each other in a single containment chamber.

Why aren't the two anomalies separated by a wall, or why aren't they just placed in adjacent containment chambers? You could rewrite that to this:

RPC-004-1 and RPC-004-2 have been placed in adjacent containment chambers, spaced 8 meters apart. The dimensions of the containment chamber listed are (Xm * Ym * Zm or Xm³).

In doing what is listed above, you not only show that the anomalies can't perform any breaches, you also ensure that they cannot get so close to each other that they perform whatever anomalous task they do.

Any fluid coming from either RPC-004-1 or RPC-004-2 is to be reported immediately.

This sentence itself is also wordy, and I would suggest trying to make it more clinical. Perhaps this:

In the event that either RPC-004-1 or RPC-004-2 are reported to be leaking a liquid substance (hereafter referred to as RPC-004-X (can be A or 3, heck, maybe even B)), ASF personnel should be alerted immediately.

Though alerting ASF personnel wouldn't really be needed, seeing as the liquid itself is harmless, I think they would have to intervene to space the two apart. Though again, they wouldn't really need to intervene because the cells should be spaced apart enough so that they don't actually do this.

I think you need to integrate more than two sentences into the article. If you're going for 004, you would definitely need to try and give it some more meat in the CPs. It doesn't seem really smart of the Authority to be keeping the anomalies in the same containment if they leak words when they get closer than 8m. Having an 8m * Ym * Zm (or 8m³) containment chamber doesn't seem all that smart, and you could literally just say that they're kept within secure containment lockers in low-threat storage. I would say try to give it some more threat-level stuff for when you begin to rewrite the article as per my crit, because so far it doesn't seem like it'll get anywhere, no offense. Like, for the Description, what would happen if someone were to get those words on them? Would it burn into their skin? Would it make them sick? Would it make them remember things that never happened to them?

RPC-004 is a collection of anomalous books, two of which remain.

This sentence was OK, save for the small rewording I had to do near the end.

RPC-004-1 is a red hardback notebook that contains writings from an unknown humanoid author.

What do you mean by "an unknown humanoid author"? Why is the Authority claiming the author of RPC-004-1 isn't human? It got its hands on a red notebook, which probably costed money for them to get or produce themselves. I would say either change "humanoid" to "human" or remove that altogether.

however, the writing itself is neither memetic or anomalous.

Attach this to the previous sentence via semi-colon (;), as it would work nicely with the flow of the article.

RPC-004-1 describes anomalous events and criminal acts, which are both currently under investigation.

This sentence itself is kind of weird. I would say rewording this sentence in its entirety.

The text contained within RPC-004-1 describes bot anomalous and criminal events. In response to this, the Authority has assigned a team of staff to investigate these events.

Even with a major rewrite, there could be some nice details you can throw into this. Like, what if the Authority realizes it is linked to a group of interest?

The author of RPC-004-1 is the perpetrator of these acts, and used their anomalous ability¹ to cover up the crimes.

This sentence is repetitive. And how did the Authority figure this out? How come the author wasn't ever identified as anomalous in the CPs? This bit is confusing and is lacking a proper clinical tone. I would suggest removing this sentence, as it really only takes away from the article.

RPC-004-2 is a blue hardback notebook with the name "Jenny" written on the front its cover.

Remember: keep clinical tone!

The writing inside of RPC-004-2 is noticeably more incoherent, but still not anomalous.

This sentence requires some rewording after the comma. I would suggest saying it is "lacking any anomalous properties, similarly to RPC-004-1."

The name Jenny refers to Jenny R█████, a 2█ year old woman who disappeared on 10/20/18.

How was the Authority able to find this out?

The police case has since been dropped at Authority request.

No. No, no, no. The Authority wouldn't request for a case to be dropped. The case would've simply went cold and would inevitably be closed.

When RPC-004-1 is in close proximity to RPC-004-2, they both begin to emit a large amount of ink.

• Why did you refer to it as liquid in the CPs?
• Why did you say RPC-004-1 and RPC-004-2 are lacking any anomalous properties?

Here we see some massive contradiction, as well as some formatting errors. Clinical tone is a massive error here, and I suggest you reword this as well as previous sentences that contradict this one.

The fluid will begin to spill off the page and then form words.

This sentence is in need of a rewrite:

After (x amount of time), the ink will begin to spill from the opened page, and upon hitting a solid surface, will form words; however, after (y amount of time), these words will manifest back onto the aforementioned page in its prior appearance.

This is a bit clunky itself, so I would suggest using this and rewording it to your liking.

Near the end, it becomes extremely contradictory, and it is very hard to follow. I decided to check the Addenda, and I came across something that went completely unmentioned in the Description: the instances's abilities to communicate to each other. You also forget to mention how they're poetry books (we shouldn't have to rely on the title for that information). Also, you don't mention the missing fliers for Jenny, etc. etc.

The article needs to be worked on in nearly every aspect. The Addenda is great, but the Description and CPs don't ever refer any information to it, thus causing the reader great confusion. This article is far, far from done, and I suggest working on it immensely. Though I do have to admit, it took a long time to crit this effectively, which I enjoyed!

As usual, not explaining everything. Given that this article is very "Addendum-heavy" there really isn't many places for me to nitpick.

Evidence suggests that the author of RPC-004-1 possessed anomalous abilities, and used them to commit these crimes.

"the aforementioned crimes" would be better, I suppose.

The name Jenny refers to Jenny R█████, a 2█ year old woman who disappeared on 10/20/18.

Since they can't say this with 100% certainty (unless I missed sth) they'll probably use the term "is believed to refer to", no?

When RPC-004-2 is in close proximity to RPC-004-1, they both begin to emit a large amountof ink.

I think quantifying these things would be best, since the Authority is a research institute first and foremost.

The fluid will begin to spill off the page, until only a small amount is left in the form of words.

I think you need to specify that this is the fluid you're talking about.

Also, I suppose you should use passive voice more often. It makes your article sound more clinical.

Ok, I think the structure is functional. I would say though, that Addendum 004.B kind of disrupts the flow of your article and should probably be removed. It seems to make a limited narrative impact anyways.

So, a poet that traps people into books sounds interesting. His motives are clear and they make him consistent. Good job!

I would say, however, that it is a pity that the methodology isn't even mentioned.

It's not exceptional, bit it's certainly functional. I would say, however, that I wish to see more of the two interact with each other.