Solid and fun perception-based anomaly. It takes some time to get going, but once it does, it explores its concept so well that I almost didn't notice the Discovery segment going nowhere. Jokes aside, it employs its mechanics so regularly that even the dull moments are sufficiently engaging.
Disappointingly for an article predicated on reflecting human experience, though, a lot of the perception play is pretty surface level: a dense forest becomes a tree wall, agents become cartoon men in black, and walls perceived as strong become stronger. These ideas are used satisfactorily in context (especially the last one), but they're also predictable and exclude curiosity.
My favorite parts are the logs; however, please apply "show, don't tell". The pencil sharpener was such a funny opener until I rolled my eyes at the joke autopsy in the last sentence. Likewise for the human logs, Jean Macintyre happily going to work as a literal ghost for 18 days with no human interaction speaks infinitely more to his character than an on-the-nose staff explanation. This article would be significantly improved if every "closing statement" were deleted, as they offer nothing else.
While I'm at it, I'll observe that the second and third description paragraphs should undoubtedly be switched — it's such a clean cut that it's as if they were misplaced on purpose. And if the log closing statements are to stay, you should add quotes to the following two excerpts or rewrite them for clinicality:
When staff were interviewed about their thoughts on Jean Macintyre, most regarded him as a reliable service technician but like a ghost, sneaking around to work sites without notice along with being anti-social.
All staff universally gave positive strong thoughts towards Alex Kochak, describing him as an unstoppable wall of muscle mass and that when not at work he’s at the gym or on a run.
Note that "along with" in the first excerpt could just be "and"; the whole article suffers from a moderate case of roundabout wording. The overall document formatting is dingy and inconsistent, too: notice how it's just "Containment" instead of "Containment Protocols" at the start, and "Closing Statement" changes to "Closing statements" over time.
The ending was pretty thrilling, though, and I'm glad to hear you're already considering a followup. I do not trust Edwards. He is a disturbed scoundrel. Overall, this was enjoyable, but not without flaws. I give it a 3/5 but some easy adjustments might sell me one point higher. Congrats on your first article, man.
