You have made a useful start, but you need to do a fair bit more work.  In particular you have not yet found the right voice for the different documents.  Read half a dozen examples of each, then talk it over with a librarian, then write them again using the style actually used by these types of organisation.   Assume Moloch is an Australian university, as would be expected from the reference to La Trobe. So provide up to date information about risks to students in Australia.   You do need to delve into exactly what the proposed measures might involve. Be specific about these.  If the proposal is to target particular groups, say so, although it is more likely that some aspects of the policy will apply to all students.  What sort of geographical tracking, contact tracing, identification of ‘chatter’ etc would be undertaken? And what additional tracking will be done of those who are consider4ed particularly dangerous?   You don’t get the language right for the different people.  The department would not ‘write to relay their fears’, nor would it ‘realize’ something, you wouldn’t ‘consult’ skills, and you just drop in ‘social credit’ at the end without explaining it.   A reader would not be convinced that you have read widely on the social credit system and understand all the possibilities and nuances.   The VC would not welcome people warmly when he/she issues a statement about a policy.  If there was to be targeting it would be based on really carefully argued positions.   You don’t need to provide in-text references, apart from maybe the newspaper article, because the ones you have don’t ring true.  What matters is that your documents reveal a deep understanding of the issues, which they don’t at the moment.   You offer moral judgements in the newspaper article which are completely out of place in this form of writing.  Instead put things in the wider context – how widely are such proposals canvassed, what happens in countries like Singapore or Saudi Arabia, how reliable are the measures proposed etc.