Leveritas 914 Sandbox
The overall idea is that 914 might not actually be working right. What is currently contained is the guts, the most core systems of the overall machine. It's like a car engine, you can do a hell of a lot to it, even tear out bits and damage it, and it'll still turn over and work, just not "right". The ages of neglect, damage, and general wear and tear and caused damage both major and minor. It works, but perhaps not as well, or even in the way, that it was intended. ~ Dr. Gears

General guidelines, the ones we all know.

1. SCP-914 does not create or destroy matter, nor does it change anything on the atomic level.

  • Example (wrong):

Input: One (1) silver table spoon.
Setting: Fine
Output: A set of ornate gold-plated cutlery.

SCP-914 is, of course, an anomalous object. What it isn't however, is magic. It builds with what it has, and it isn't capable of transfiguration. Despite it being an anomalous object, conservation of mass1 still applies.

  • Example (right):

Input: One (1) Security Clearance Card (level 4)
Setting: Very Fine
Output: One (1) 'Master' Credit Card, devoid of any number.

Note: This is an example from the Containment Breach game. Let me be clear on this: The game isn't canon in any way, but I'm using this because it's such a good example of what SCP-914 does. It can be argued that it's an improvement because it's a 'master' card, right? It's also unusable because its obviously forged and doesn't have any numbering.


2. SCP-914 is a cheeky little bugger. It's unpredictable and apparently kinda snarky.

For this log, predictable = boring. If 914 just nicely improved all the input stuff, that's out-of-character. I already talked a little bit about it earlier, so let's look at an example here too.

  • Example (wrong):

Input: One (1) Hard-drive with 500 gigabyte of space.
Setting: Fine
Output: One (1) Solid State drive with 2 terabyte of space.

In the above example, SCP-914 just obediently improved whatever was tested, which is out-of-character for it.

SCP-914 seemingly has a mind of its own, and its understanding of improvement is probably different from yours:

  • Example (right):

Input: One (1) digital thermometer.
Setting: Very fine.
Output: An intricate instrument with several digital dials that change when exposed to different temperatures and directions. The symbols do not correspond to any known mathematical object to count or measure.

In other words, it definitely is an improvement, and it's also useless. We can't read what it measures. This is a subversion while still technically counting as an improvement. This is an example, and therefore doesn't mean that all results have to be useless. In the end, it's about subverting expectations.

Generally, you can get away with improving an item without anything else if the last 'setting' surprises a reader or if the improvement is interesting on its own.


3. Biological testing.

Ooh boy. So something that might might need clearing up is that testing with dead things is not technically forbidden. Something made from wood is fine, but a mouse (even a dead one) would have to be cleared. Why? Something biological that isn't defined as a complete organism (leather, wood, coal) is less likely to become a Site-destroying undead cousin to SCP-3000.

Biological testing has to be cleared by O5 command, and that's because it has a very good reason to be forbidden. An in-universe researcher will not be responsible for setting the next 682 loose on humanity because his idiot intern wanted to see what happens if he puts his hamster in on 'very fine'. In other words, testing with organisms poses a risk that usually won't be worth the payoff.

Apart from the risk of testing itself, there are several reasons and caveats why something will or won't get cleared and almost all of them are subjective. As an aside, something that comes to mind right now is: what researcher is going to bother an Overseer2 to ask if he can use a potted plant in a test? It's like calling the CEO of Microsoft because you want permission to use the copy machine every time you want to use it. In other words, it needs a good reason.

The bottom line is that biological (organism) testing isn't against the rules if you let it be cleared by O5 command, but will require:

  1. Being held to higher standards of quality.
  2. A reasonably low risk of creating something hazardous.

Specific guidelines.

Be creative, but don't make Foundation personnel look like idiots.

Oh my god, that was [EXPLETIVE] amazing! Can't wait to try very fine!

Professional research personnel are required to act accordingly. If you want, you can make a note to say something along the lines of the researchers facing disciplinary actions (don't kill people please, we're strict, not North Korea). That said, keep in mind that it won't be enough to compensate for someone cramming in a nuclear missile with a piece of 682 to see what happens. That's something that anyone working at the Foundation would find idiotic to try anyway.

If I do make a note myself I'll probably stick with Dr. Veritas, because I'm extremely creative.


If you add entries with spelling errors, grammatical errors or you don't follow the format properly, I'll get cranky with you.

Correcting bolding and punctuation isn't my idea of a happy time.


Using other SCPs for testing is probably a bad plan.

Since the majority would be biological testing, it wouldn't be allowed anyway. If it's not biological, you need to ask yourself if a researcher would be fired for incompetence because they tried this. Improving something that already breaks the law of normalcy is probably a poor idea. The Foundation doesn't bang rocks together, the experiment log is no exception.


Tests that results in massive casualties.

Output: [DATA EXPUNGED] resulted in ██ deaths, including Dr. ████ and 19 research personnel. Note: ''Oh, the horror!'' Dr. ██████

This is likely something that could have been prevented easily and probably makes the Foundation look like irresponsible idiots to attempt the test in the first place. If you try to improve a flamethrower and the researcher was incinerated because they didn't use thermal protection, that's what I'd call "leaving yourself in the hands of natural selection".


Our armoury is full.

''This will be useful, let's store it in the armoury.''

More subjective than other guidelines, but anomalous weaponry is overdone as a test result and unlikely to be used. Here's why:

Forgive me for ranting a little, but Mr. In-universe researcher: Are you out of your mind? You're going to add an anomalous object that was created by an unpredictable anomalous object in order to contain other SCPs? That is asking for trouble. Get out of my testing area before you blow the Site sky high!

If you try to add something anomalous to the armoury or add to your personal collection, you're probably going to be kicked out of the Foundation because we protect and contain things. We don't use an SCP to create cool new boomsticks. Even if something seems useful and safe, that rifle that 914 made might create a black hole on its 987th shot. Bad idea.


About the author/additional notes on pruning:

Are you some sort of authority on 914?

I'm not Gears, so no. I'm a moderator on the wiki, but I don't have any power that another moderator or administrator doesn't have. The only difference at the time of writing is that I prune entries the most, which gives newer users the impression that I'm the only one allowed to remove anything. I'm not.

Do I have to ask you or anyone else permission to add something?

Please don't. You're free to add experiments, that's what the collaboration tag means. We're not gatekeepers, but we do quality control.

Do you make exceptions?

Sure, but your entry better be damn good to compensate for it. It shares this trait with cliché SCP concepts. If you write it well enough, it would be a shame to remove it.

Do I use the number (#) system or not?

While the number (#) notation saw a lot of use in the past, it's not something that really needs to be used unless there's a strong need for the number to be read accurately (drug dosages, for instance.) Otherwise it's just taking up space.

That said, it's also used in the entirety of the first experiment log. We would have to remove every single one of them in order to keep consistency. We might get around to addressing this in the future, but it's not considered a priority at this point. Short answer: It's your call.

Can I edit out entries that I think are bad myself?

Nope, that's the job of staff. Feel free to correct spelling and formatting, but the removal of entries is our call.

What if I don't agree with my entry being removed?

You can pm me to ask for clarification if the note in the pruning post isn't enough for you. If you still disagree after that, contact another member of staff for a second opinion. If multiple staff members agree with the pruning, it's probably valid.

Conclusion.

These are guidelines. Some can be broken, but will require a higher quality/more interesting experiment to compensate for it. The only real rule is the first one. If you have any suggestions, additions or objections to any of these, please let me know.

Also note: This is created entirely by me and general guidelines are my take on them. This is why this isn't a guide, but an essay. It's meant as a tool in order to give aspiring authors an understanding of SCP-914 and to help them create more interesting work. Good luck!

Author post:

This isn't a guide, it's an essay. It's meant as a tool to help new writers get a feeling for what we expect on a test log. I probably missed examples and common mistakes when adding to the log, and that's fine. It's not meant to be in-depth, just some general notes and housekeeping to get you going.