Whilst the scrolling text is fucking cool, I can see some people finding it jarring. Personally, I'd make only the = SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIRED = scroll, and the rest pop up instantly, if that's at all possible. Otherwise, it's a neat and (to my knowledge) unique little effect.

Actually, just giving the whole draft a quick once-over, it feels very reminiscent of SCP-2317, with several iterations of the same draft gradually revealing the danger of the anomaly. I'm by no means accusing you of plagiarism, I just feel as if that comparison will be made regardless of the content.

Also, just another general thing- why is the [DATA REDACTED] formatted to be smaller? It's a little jarring. Moving on.

Level 1/GENERAL Clearance

firing of the offender, regardless of the clearance level of the victim.

Weird choice of words: 'Will result in the offender being disciplined appropriately, regardless of clearance level.'

SCP-XXXX is to be kept in a standard Safe-class vault with an accessible power outlet.

'Safe-class vault' is a new one. I'd personally change this to 'SCP-XXXX is to be kept within a standard low-value object containment vault with one accessible power outlet.'

One glaring issue with this 'general clearance' is that it reads less like a full SCP article and more like a basic anomalous item. Just a hint at something more extravagant would work wonders here.

Level 2/RESEARCHER Clearance

Threat Level: Blue

What is the point of the 'Threat Level'? All you're really doing is making the final document say 'Look guys, this one is really dangerous' which we shouldn't have to be directly told as readers. I'd personally remove them altogether.

The use of expungement in the 'Reports' section isn't great, and detracts from the article imo. Check out this handy guide for more information about that. The reports in general are also a bit of a drag, and not particularly interesting, though perhaps that's the point.

Level 3/XXXX Clearance

This is where I started to realise how technical this skip was going to get, which isn't really my kind of article, but I'll do my best to help as much as I can. I didn't see any glaring issues in this section.

That's as far as I could actually get without my head hurting. As far as I could tell, the clinical tone and SPaG was consistently good throughout all iterations, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you what it's about, even after re-reading a couple times. I hope what I've managed to tell you is helpful in some way. This just really isn't my type of article, I'm afraid, and the fact that it's late at night doesn't particularly help either.