Using numbers as the only way to jolt the reader's memory of characters (excluding personal pronouns, such as 'he' and 'they') is a rather difficult (and likely unsuccessful) way to hold on to the reader's interest. The reader may become befuddled by the continuous usage of numbers, and may have to keep checking back to see who is who. You want to make it as easy as possible for the reader and allow them to enjoy your story, instead of raising stress due to prolonged incomprehension.
Therefore, I recommend that you introduce the characters using nouns and juxtapositions (such as calling the two working men 'the two human machines') and personal pronouns (such as 'he' or 'I' for the protagonist instead of 153200-B, if you wish to change the story to a first person narrative, which might just make it easier for readers to understand it). After permitting the reader to get used to the characters a little, then it would be suitable to use the numbers.
The sentence - 'One of the first things he noticed was his arm, which had a large black tattoo which read “Property of Intellitech. Unit 153200-B, Android Construction.”' - would be less cluttered if you omitted the second 'which' and instead put a comma after 'tattoo' and used the word 'reading' instead of 'read'.
I like the idea of the barcode. It symbolises the way humans are now the property of the robots, unlike the way it was before the latter's reign. A symbol of the revolution, no?
You might want to change the word 'coursed' in the following sentence - 'The voice was flat, and each syllable coursed with inhumanity.' - to something else, such as 'resounded' or 'surged', as you already used 'coursed' in the paragraph before. Also, why '... coursed with inhumanity'? What was so inhumane about the voice? Or was it just flat, droning, mechanic? I recommend you define that a little more. In addition, a space after the ellipsis (...) at the beginning of a sentence and at the end of a sentence before another ellipsis is necessary. So, “...Return to work...” should be "... Return to work ..."
I also recommend that you put a paragraph between "How long ago was the last one?" and "He couldn't remember." It sinks into the mind a bit more that way.
Place the first comma after the 'and' in this sentence - 'To his left and right were men at work, and beyond them, large machines.' When you describe the men having "... shaved heads and oddly blank eyes" you don't make it clear whether you're talking about the men or the machines. I understand that you're talking about the men, but it would be better nonetheless for you to specify. For example, "Both the men had shaved heads and oddly blank eyes."
'They didn’t seem to notice anything, but went blindly to their work.' The word 'blindly' doesn't really suit the sentence. Perhaps 'automatically' or 'mechanically' would be better suited. 'Blindly' would suit a more impulsive verb, something like 'She ran blindly and toppled into the bushes', not 'they went to their work'.
'It looked chromed. Chromed? What the hell is that?' Now how does that fit in with the story? Rhetorical questions often stick in people's minds after they've read a story containing them, allowing the readers to debate them in their own minds and come to their own conclusions. But why does the narrator wonder about the chromed wall? Are you trying to emphasise the machine age? Everything dull and metallic? Hmmmm ... it doesn't quite make sense to me otherwise.
'He had to get out of there.' Perhaps it would be more correct to say 'here' instead of 'there'. The reader is, after all, seeing everything from the narrator's point-of-view, so he is in the same place as the narrator - here.
'He doubted that the two people on either side would offer any resistance, they seemed to go about their work with a singular purpose.' Use a semicolon instead of a comma after 'resistance'.
'It was scary to watch them work with such ghostly precision and silence.' Maybe you could change 'scary' to something a little less colloquial sounding? 'unnerving' or 'disconcerting' perhaps. Also, when one thinks of ghosts one does not usually associate them with precision. Ghosts are usually portrayed as vague and indefinite. That's why it's quite odd to describe the men working with a '... ghostly precision ..." You could just leave out the 'ghostly' all together ... or you could replace it with something like 'mechanic'.
It's interesting that you describe the robot as 'nondescript'. It's an excellent description - the robot has no individuality, nothing to distinguish him to be much different from the rest of its race. You're alluding to the whole genetic engineering business here, perhaps even without knowing it. It's also interesting that the robot inspects the workers instead of vice versa as one would normally believe - who invented the robots but humans, after all?
Make 'He seized his chance' on a separate paragraph. It'll get the reader anticipating, if even for a second.
'As he hit the ground, mind full of glorious thoughts of escape, his feet gave out under him and he fell painfully onto the floor.' I really like the juxtaposition in this sentence. You have contrasted two ideas - glory (due to escape) and pain (due to failure) - which, though they are quite opposing, you have managed to relate very well to each other. The whole incident does happen rather too quickly, though. Perhaps you could drag it out just a little bit longer?
The narrator's "vapourisation" does happen rather quickly as well. Perhaps you could make a mention of his feelings in that infinitesimal pause between the moment he lands on the floor and the robot turns? I do, however, like the fact that you mention the narrator being vapourised into atoms - that highlights the theme of mechanical rule in this story.
'... another 00-B model had lost it’s host ...' There is no need for the apostrophe in "it's". The host is a possession of the model (or was); therefore, it is necessary to write "its". "It's" is a shortened form of "it is".
Perhaps it was the intended effect, but this piece reminded me a little of the movie
Gattaca (starring Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke). Both this short story and
Gattaca address issues of social and evolutionary importance - genetic engineering in
Gattaca and the reign of robots in this story. The latter also reminded me of the
Terminator series - a combination of machines and humans is bound to do so, particularly when the machines are the dominant race.
However, what the
Terminator series doesn't show as well as
Gattaca and this story is the concept of compassion or even empathy.
The very last line of this piece - "It would have to report that another 00-B model had lost it’s host, and subsequently returned to free will and attempted to escape. That made fourteen this month." - somehow made me feel that the robot was anthropomorphic and sighed when this thought passed through its "brain", as though it were weary of its task and all it had seen, despite its obedience to its rules.
This, therefore, relates the machines to humanity, because machines are generally not human, as they entertain no thoughts or feelings, having no minds or consciences. I don't suppose you intended for that sort of effect, but, if you did, you conveyed it in a subtle and laudable manner.
Overall, an intriguing piece with a good deal of effort put into it, but one that could definitely be made better nonetheless. I recommend some more descriptions and more attention to be paid to them, because some of the descriptions already in this piece are quite confusing, as they ought to be attributed to other things, e.g. '... ghostly precision and silence.' No complaints about spelling and almost none about punctuation, so well done in that aspect!
Also, I commend you for choosing such an interesting topic and expanding on it in such an intelligent way. It's not all that popular a theme among authors, though it's been used to the point of a cliché in movies. I'm proud of you for doing it so well; this piece definitely has a lot of promise. I look forward to reading more of your work, I really do.
