layout change ui fix

scripts/skill-check.mjs

@@ -7976,8 +7976,30 @@ console.log('\n── Candidates vs Talent Pool ──');
       return html.slice(0, at) + html.slice(i);
     };
 
-    record('the layout controls are present and separable',
-      now.includes('<div data-ui-controls') && stripControls(now).indexOf('data-ui-controls') === -1);
+    /**
+     * A page at rest draws no layout controls at all.
+     *
+     * This used to assert the opposite — that the controls were PRESENT — back
+     * when they led with a `Customise layout` button that was on screen whether
+     * or not anybody was arranging anything. That button is gone: Owliver is the
+     * only way to propose a layout change now, and what is left is the bar that
+     * lets a person accept or reject one. With nothing proposed and nothing
+     * saved there is nothing to accept, so the component renders nothing.
+     *
+     * `stripControls` is kept and still exercised. The bar does appear once a
+     * change is being previewed, and the comparison below must stay able to lift
+     * it out when it does.
+     */
+    record('a page at rest draws no layout controls',
+      !now.includes('<div data-ui-controls'));
+
+    record('layout controls stay separable when they are drawn', (() => {
+      const withBar = `<main><p>kept</p><div data-ui-controls="editor"><div><span>Apply</span></div></div><p>also kept</p></main>`;
+      const stripped = stripControls(withBar);
+      return !stripped.includes('data-ui-controls')
+        && stripped.includes('<p>kept</p>')
+        && stripped.includes('<p>also kept</p>');
+    })());
 
     now = stripControls(now);
 
@@ -8308,6 +8330,92 @@ console.log('\n── Candidates vs Talent Pool ──');
     return r.ok && ids.indexOf('timeline') < ids.indexOf('activity-privileged-notice');
   })());
 
+  /* ── Where "to the top" is allowed to be said ──────────────────────────── */
+
+  /**
+   * The destination phrasings, because the missing ones read as a broken feature.
+   *
+   * Reported from production: "show the pipeline move to top" was answered "I
+   * could not find that on this page." The target resolved perfectly well — the
+   * refusal came from `planMove`, which knew `to the top` and did not know
+   * `to top`, and a move with no destination falls through to `unknown`. The
+   * user cannot tell that apart from the section not existing.
+   */
+  const movesFirst = (q) => {
+    const m = ask(q);
+    if (m?.kind !== 'plan' || m.op.op !== 'reorder') return false;
+    return m.op.order[0] === 'timeline';
+  };
+  const movesLast = (q) => {
+    const m = ask(q);
+    if (m?.kind !== 'plan' || m.op.op !== 'reorder') return false;
+    return m.op.order[m.op.order.length - 1] === 'timeline';
+  };
+
+  for (const q of [
+    'move timeline to top',
+    'move timeline to the top',
+    'move the timeline to the very top',
+    'move timeline up',
+    'move the timeline first',
+    'put the timeline at the top',
+    'show the timeline move to top',
+  ]) {
+    record(`"${q}" → timeline first`, movesFirst(q));
+  }
+
+  for (const q of [
+    'move timeline to bottom',
+    'move timeline to the bottom',
+    'move the timeline to the end',
+    'move timeline down',
+    'move the timeline last',
+  ]) {
+    record(`"${q}" → timeline last`, movesLast(q));
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * A destination word inside a section's NAME is not a destination.
+   *
+   * `over` lives inside `coverage`, `end` inside `trends`. Matched as
+   * substrings, "move coverage trends to the bottom" satisfied both the top
+   * reading and the bottom one — and the top is tested first, so it moved the
+   * opposite way from the one asked for. Whole-word matching is what fixed it;
+   * this is the case that proves it.
+   */
+  const coverageCase = (() => {
+    const placed = opsMod4.applyOperation(tree4, {
+      op: 'add', parent: null,
+      node: {
+        id: 'cov-1', type: 'flow', data: { source: 'candidates.activity' },
+        props: { title: 'Coverage trends' },
+      },
+    }, { registry: reg4 });
+    if (!placed.ok) return { pass: false, detail: 'fixture could not be placed' };
+
+    /* Put it at the TOP first, so "to the bottom" is a real change. Added at
+       the end, it is already there and the answer is a refusal rather than a
+       plan — which would pass this check for the wrong reason. */
+    const atTop = opsMod4.applyOperation(placed.tree, {
+      op: 'reorder',
+      parent: null,
+      order: ['cov-1', ...placed.tree.map((n) => n.id).filter((id) => id !== 'cov-1')],
+    }, { registry: reg4 });
+    if (!atTop.ok) return { pass: false, detail: 'fixture could not be placed first' };
+
+    const m = intentMod.matchUiEdit('move coverage trends to the bottom',
+      { tree: atTop.tree, registry: reg4 });
+    if (m?.kind !== 'plan' || m.op.op !== 'reorder') {
+      return { pass: false, detail: JSON.stringify(m) };
+    }
+    return {
+      pass: m.op.order[m.op.order.length - 1] === 'cov-1',
+      detail: m.op.order.join(', '),
+    };
+  })();
+  record('a section named "Coverage trends" still moves to the bottom',
+    coverageCase.pass, coverageCase.detail);
+
   record('"Change the hiring activity to a table." → replace with table', (() => {
     const m = ask('Change the hiring activity to a table.');
     return m?.kind === 'plan' && m.op.op === 'replace' && m.op.target === 'flow-1' && m.op.type === 'table';