Interesting concept, but the page is riddled with numerous SPAG errors and inconsistencies in clinical tone:
The Human Living Area is a very larger area […]
Actually, this exploration was not a successful one, but we still collected some useful information, so we recorded it.
Much of the dialogue also reads extremely unnaturally:
Justin: I admit that the last plan was not rigorous. I didn't consider some special circumstances. But I think we still have hope and the possibility of success. The window of Level 301 was not destroyed in the damage, it is still there. Cheer up, this time we need to make a rigorous and perfect plan as much as possible. Now I will write out the draft plan that comes to mind first.
The letter to the overseers comes off as a comedic parody of the one in Super Almond Water, especially the "R.I.P." pinned under the guy's image. Whereas the section you took inspiration from was the low point and punch of the MEG's failures, here, it's largely brushed over in the time frame of a single meeting. Overseer A never wavers nor reflects on the ethical dilemma during any point through the second mission. This all compounds to the issue that the MEG's victory in the finale feels unearned. They give people suits, people die, they give people better suits, and just like that, it works out. The ending then concludes that Oversight A was right all along and that hope does conquer all.
If you had just shown any of the characters striving for a less fatal solution, or had been interested in fully dealing with the question of "the greater good", this wouldn't be a direction I'd hate. Right now, however, the article's message feels shallow at best and deeply insensitive at worst.
-1
