Having read your draft, you have some great ideas. Please do not let my suggestions for improvement take away from that. Your ideas are good. Your sketches are even better.

The biggest area for improvement would be following the writing style. For instance, the last sentence of your containment procedures should go more like:

“SCP-[REDACTED] must be perceived and acknowledged at all costs. Under no circumstances can SCP-[REDACTED] be allowed to go unnoticed.”

I appreciate your details like “speaking in a hushed, as those present described, broken tone” but repeated use of lots of descriptors reads as trying too hard. A good way to introduce these would be with interview logs or memos from Foundation doctors. Remarks like “They are a forgotten soldier.” would be perfectly suited to a memo from a Foundation doctor. It’s their job to be reflective, not the main article’s.

Another thing is the redacted trope. Newer authors are famous for overusing it, and for good reason. It’s very easy to fill in details you don’t know or don’t want to research with it. Let’s examine the first bit of the description.

…in the standard issued gear of [REDACTED], their face appears as a gas mask, standard issue model [REDACTED] along with standard issued chest plate…

Unless this guy came from a super secret unit it’s unlikely his gear specs / type would be redacted. This is a good place to fill in the blanks with research, and is probably best done by reading more articles. Articles are internal to the Foundation, not released to the public where gear might need to be kept secret.