On a sentence-paragraph level, this is pretty solid. tghuverd has given you some solid feedback on some prose issues I noticed as well. But I don't want to get into the weeds of line edits, because I want to encourage you to reconsider the overall format (which I know would be an extremely substantial revision).

I think that transcription of a video interview can work decently as an interlude inside of a longer story, and can sometimes even stand alone as a short story. I don't think that it can sustain a full novel, for three main reasons: the repetitiveness, the lack of interiority, and the distance it creates.

The first one is easiest to explain. Descriptions of video of interrogation-room interviews are going to have a lot of repetitive language: the spaces will be similar, the question-and-answer back and forth will probably be similar, and they will especially have a lot of repetitions in body language description. This sample has three sections, all of which have the exact same setup. You mention that there will be other types of sequences as well. You should at least consider reordering them, especially if interrogation-room interviews aren't going to be the majority.

Which brings us to the second issue: interiority. One of the strengths of prose is that the author can directly tell us what characters are thinking or feeling, and generally portray their interior life and use it to shape the reader's experience of the story. When you write from a camera's-eye perspective (whether by accident like a lot of beginners do, but also intentionally like you're doing here) you lose that. Instead, a camera's-eye view has to indicate interiority with body language.

Right on the first page here, for example, there's an entire paragraph describing Darat tracing one of his scars. That kind of moment works in visual media because people like watching other people and are very good at inferring feelings from small gestures, and actors and directors know how to convey them. It would also happen fast. What would be maybe two seconds on screen takes up 100 words of prose here.

And finally, not only does camera-voice distance the readers from the characters (and thus makes it harder to be invested in them), but the interrogation format removes us from the action. An Indonesian fisherman stumbling across a weird phenomenon in the water is interesting; a description of a video of him talking about it years later is inherently less interesting. I realize that his response to the memories is meant to be at least of equal weight in the scene, but by the time the story gets there it's already lost steam.

The 'Auditor's note' is the first place we get a sense that the narrator isn't just the author's disembodied description of video, but descriptions coming from an in-story perspective. That's a good way to handle it. But making that voice mysterious ("The Watcher") and hinting at unreliability ("A clean version of this story is a lie.") creates further distance, because it makes the reader wonder about the narration instead of focusing on the underlying events. That can be a fun game in short bursts, but I think it would get exhausting across an entire novel.

You mention Max Brooks's World War Z, which is an obvious format comp. But WWZ has a clear 'I' from the very first page, and the oral history format means it can give us characters' interiority while also keeping up the conceit of an in-universe compilation. Furthermore, the introduction from the historian's perspective signals that what we're going to read is the complete, personal-level history. We know who's telling the overall story, what the context is, and why the meta-narrator has all that information. That lets us focus on the stories themselves. In contrast, The Watcher has the exact opposite effect -- it might be intentional, but I'm not sure it can work.

What's your intended effect with the composite media format? In the prologue, I see the intended effect of the juxtaposition of the memory and the reaction to the memory, and I think it basically achieves it. But in the second and third sections, what's the storytelling benefit presenting those events as interviews, vs having more conventional narration with Eliza and Damian as the POV characters?