"MONUMENT, Or History Without A Home" feels kind of unfocused as a whole. The containment protocols and description are really long, even though they aren't all that significant to the article's progression in the long run. The containment protocols are kind of interesting in hindsight, but they didn't really entice me when I was first reading them.
Meanwhile, the description just feels kind of shoddy. I found it boring, and I think it takes longer to communicate its simple premise than it has to. It over-explains things that should be held off until the logs and makes rather poor use of sub-designations. Also, while I do think a lot of this article's "irrelevant" details are nice and help flesh out the setting, some of them just feel pointless. For instance, the area of effect can be a sphere or a cube; does that really matter to me? I'm also not sure what the idea behind the reoccurring ones is, though if I could be enlightened on this point I would be glad.
The logs were kind of hit or miss, though I will say that it did hit sometimes, and this is where the article picked up for me. It uses the SCP appeal of writing about a fascinating anomaly without telling a particular narrative pretty well, as evidenced by the collaborative log. I felt like there were a few too many cross-links? That may just be me. I do think that the unwarranted introduction to the word "theogonic" (complete with cross-link) over halfway through the article was incredibly odd.
The final addendum was pure gold, though. I have no words.
This is close to being perfect in my eyes, but I can't give a perfect rating if I don't think that I could unconditionally recommend the article. In this case, the condition is "sit through the boring bits", which seems to be a common complaint I have about otherwise decent articles. Not bad by any means, however. 4/5