Interesting one this. I've been going back and forth on those photos since they got posted and I keep landing in the same place - the figure in the third corridor shot is too defined to be simple lens artefact or motion blur.
A few things I'd want to know before drawing conclusions:
What camera was used? Sensor size matters massively for shadow rendering in low light, Were these shot on auto ISO? High ISO noise can absolutely mimic humanoid shapes if you're primed to look for them, Was there a second photographer in the building? Parallax shadows from another person's torch are a classic false positive
That said, the proportions on that shape are weirdly consistent across the two frames. Pareidolia usually breaks down when you have multiple images from slightly different angles - this doesn't.
I do EVP work mostly but I've done a fair bit of controlled photography at sites around the Highlands. Running a Sony A7III with a full-spectrum conversion and I still get artefacts I can't immediately explain. The difference is I can usually account for them technically.
Has anyone run the Waverly shots through photo forensics tools like FotoForensics or Ghiro? ELA analysis would flag pretty quickly if there's been any post-processing on that area of the image. Would be useful data either way, whether it supports the sighting or debunks it.
What was the atmospheric reading in that corridor at the time? Temperature differential can sometimes indicate something worth noting beyond just visual anomalies.