Let's use this sentence as an example:
However, instances of RPC-394-1 have always been recorded to cause—either directly or indirectly—harmful and/or lethal effects subsequent to the granting of the wish upon the user of RPC-394.
It may look alright, but let me see how many oddities I can pull out.
First of all, the effects are given their own subdesignations in this article. This is the only article I've ever read that gives designations to things which are completely intangible, and these designations aren't even used often enough in the article to make such a thing necessary. Let's substitute it for clarity:
However, RPC-394's "wishes" have always been recorded to cause—either directly or indirectly—harmful and/or lethal effects subsequent to the granting of the wish upon the user of RPC-394.
"Of RPC-394" at the end is redundant; we already know who "the user" is. "Subsequent to the granting of the wish" is also redundant; the start of the sentence establishes when this effect occurs.
However, RPC-394's "wishes" have always been recorded to cause—either directly or indirectly—harmful and/or lethal effects upon the user.
"Have always been recorded to cause" is unnecessarily verbose and hedge-y, let's cut it down.
However, RPC-394's "wishes" also cause—either directly or indirectly—harmful and/or lethal effects upon the user.
"Upon" is a rather floaty and imprecise word, let's change it to… "to".
However, RPC-394's "wishes" also cause—either directly or indirectly—harmful and/or lethal effects to the user.
We've made good progress in improving the legibility so far, but we can do more. Let's move "either directly or indirectly" to the end of the sentence, so that we can remove one of the pauses and also make it flow smoother. This also leaves the most important part of the sentence uninterrupted, which helps a bunch towards clarity.
However, RPC-394's "wishes" also cause harmful and/or lethal effects to the user, either directly or indirectly.
Lastly, let's shorten "harmful and/or lethal". Please don't call it "and/or"; that is such an ugly word.
However, RPC-394's "wishes" also cause undesirable effects to the user, either directly or indirectly.
And with that, we have this sentence, which is so much shorter and so much more legible. You may think I'm being nitpicky, but every sentence of clinical tone in this article is problematic like this, and it was really disorienting to read.
Here's another sentence like that, from the ConProts:
Once a month, Site-286 staff are to be deployed to the location of RPC-394’s holding.
Excuse me, "the location of RPC-394's holding"!? May I introduce you to the phrase "containment cell"? This entire second paragraph could probably be summarized in one sentence, anyway: "Once a month, Site-286 staff are to perform an in-person analysis of RPC-394's containment systems to ensure that they are functioning properly."
Not to mention that the article just straight-up leaves out important information! Let's see the first sentence of the second description paragraph, for instance:
Its secondary effect, designated RPC-394-2, is the gradual shift of a person’s ideological and moral standards towards those that can be considered as greedy and/or envious in nature, with prolonged exposure exacerbating this psychological degradation to the point of disregarding any and all preconceived moral convictions, familial bonds, etc.
Er… the entire second description paragraph? Yep, this is one of those "sentence paragraphs" I so love making fun of. Back on track though, note how it never tells us who it's affecting here, or when. When I first read this article, I thought this was supposed to be a permanent effect on the wish-caster. It's actually a temporary effect on everyone around the object.