The layer-key order was adopted from two measured screens and then applied to
every build on the disc, so it owed a regression check against the screens the
corpus had already validated against the running game.
Rendered the tutorial PAUSE menu and the title main menu both ways and diffed:
3.8 % and 1.1 % of pixels differ, max delta 45/255 and 34/255, and the two
renders are indistinguishable in layout — the change is confined to blends where
translucent sprites overlap. No regression, but which order is more faithful on
those two screens is unsettled and recorded as such.
Adds a corpus-wide test asserting every composite's draw list is strictly
increasing in (layer key, declaration index), streaming one pak at a time so it
does not OOM alongside the other whole-disc tests. It reports the rule's reach:
341 of 965 builds are reordered, and it fails if that share collapses.
BACKLOG said the per-class ship generalisation needs "the capture-ship-placement
build of Canary". Checked: the ship capture is in the CURRENT build —
RequestShipCaptureFrame and CaptureShipDrawForRE are in command_processor.cc on
auto/re-ui-draw-order, and F10 wrote a 2.9 MB ship capture from this session's
binary. No separate build is needed.
What actually blocks it is navigation: a mission is behind the main menu, and (A)
at the title is accepted on about half of boots with nothing observable
predicting which. tutorial_launch.sh drives boot -> title -> menu -> TUTORIAL and
retries the WHOLE BOOT on refusal, because re-pressing the same title never
works — measured, not assumed.
First run of it: (A) refused, so it rebooted. That is the expected shape rather
than a failure of the harness.
