docs(review): split into ReviewMap and DemoMap, with one status table

The review file now separates the two questions it was mixing:

  ReviewMap - assets staged on their own: individual objects, the Blender import, camera angles
  and the lighting comparison. Nothing from the game map is involved.
  DemoMap   - the actual game map in development: street, buildings, player, vehicle in place.

One status table at the top covers both parts, with a Part column, and remains the only place
approval and issue notes are recorded. Between them sits the Blender-vs-UE comparison, which now
pairs ReviewMap captures as well as DemoMap ones, followed by the ReviewMap image grid and the
existing in-game shot sections.

Tools/ue_build_review_map.py also stages the LATEST vehicle assets (five systems plus the hatch
paint) and two new cameras - a three-quarter view of the car and a ground-level look at the
character's feet - so the staging map never drifts from what the Blender tools last produced.
Tools/render_screenshots.sh gained a second capture pass that renders ReviewMap into
Screenshots/review/, after the demo collection because that pass clears the engine's screenshot
folder.

Tools/build_comparison_md.py

@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ import shutil
 import subprocess
 
 DEMO_DIR = "Screenshots/demo"
+REVIEW_DIR = "Screenshots/review"
 BLENDER_DIR = "Screenshots/blender"
 OUT = "Screenshots/README.md"
 BEGIN = "<!-- blender-comparison:begin -->"
@@ -43,6 +44,12 @@ SHOT_ALIASES = {
 }
 
 
+def review_shots():
+    if not os.path.isdir(REVIEW_DIR):
+        return []
+    return sorted(f for f in os.listdir(REVIEW_DIR) if f.endswith(".png"))
+
+
 def demo_shots():
     if not os.path.isdir(DEMO_DIR):
         return []
@@ -95,15 +102,15 @@ def image_cell(path, width=520):
 
 
 def build():
-    shots = demo_shots()
+    shots = review_shots() + demo_shots()
     renders = blender_renders()
     lines = [
-        "## Blender vs in-game",
+        "### Blender vs in-game",
         "",
         "Regenerated by `Tools/build_comparison_md.py`; everything between the markers is",
         "rewritten, so edit outside them.",
         "",
-        f"- In-game captures: `{DEMO_DIR}/` ({len(shots)} files)",
+        f"- Captures: `{REVIEW_DIR}/` and `{DEMO_DIR}/` ({len(shots)} files)",
         f"- Blender renders: `{BLENDER_DIR}/` ({len(renders)} files), made by `Tools/blender_screenshots.py`",
         "",
         "Left is what the engine draws, right is what Blender has. A gap between them is the",
@@ -121,7 +128,7 @@ def build():
         match = best_blender_match(shot, renders)
         paired[shot] = match
         lines.append(
-            f"| {image_cell(f'{DEMO_DIR}/{shot}')} "
+            f"| {image_cell(f'{REVIEW_DIR if shot in review_shots() else DEMO_DIR}/{shot}')} "
             f"| {image_cell(f'{BLENDER_DIR}/{match}' if match else None)} "
             f"| `{shot}` |")
     if not shots:

Tools/render_screenshots.sh

@@ -69,6 +69,33 @@ done
 [ "$found" = "1" ] || { echo "ERROR: no demo screenshots found"; exit 1; }
 ls -1 "$REPO/Screenshots/demo"
 
+echo "== 6b/7 capture the review map (asset staging) =="
+# The ReviewMap stages the models on their own - imported assets, camera angles and the
+# lighting comparison - which is a different question from "does the game map look right".
+# Its shots collect into Screenshots/review/ so the two reviews stay separate.
+rm -rf "$REPO"/Game/GigLine/Saved/Screenshots/* 2>/dev/null || true
+mkdir -p "$REPO/Game/GigLine/Saved/Screenshots/LinuxEditor"
+"$ENGINE/Engine/Binaries/Linux/UnrealEditor-Cmd" "$PROJ" /Game/Test/ReviewMap \
+  -game -windowed -ResX=1920 -ResY=1080 -nopause -nosplash -stdout
+
+echo "== 6c/7 collect the review-map screenshots =="
+mkdir -p "$REPO/Screenshots/review"
+rm -f "$REPO"/Screenshots/review/review-*.png
+found_review=0
+for src in \
+  "$REPO/Game/GigLine/Saved/Screenshots"/*/review-*.png \
+  "$REPO/Game/GigLine/Saved/Screenshots"/*/*/review-*.png \
+  "$HOME/.config/Epic/GigLine/Saved/Screenshots"/*/review-*.png; do
+  [ -e "$src" ] || continue
+  case "$(basename "$src")" in
+    *demo-*) : ;;
+    *) cp -f "$src" "$REPO/Screenshots/review/"; found_review=1 ;;
+  esac
+done
+[ "$found_review" = "1" ] || echo "WARN: no review-map screenshots found"
+ls -1 "$REPO/Screenshots/review" 2>/dev/null | head -20
+
+
 # The scene audit is a gate: a wrong-material or misplaced actor is exactly the
 # kind of failure that still renders plausibly.
 if grep -q "failure(s) ==" /tmp/gigline/scene-audit.txt 2>/dev/null; then

Tools/ue_build_review_map.py

@@ -192,6 +192,32 @@ try:
     else:
         log("MISSING: /Script/GigLine.GigLineCharacter")
 
+    # --- vehicle, from the latest Blender import ------------------------------
+    # Staged from the same assets the demo map uses, so the review always shows what
+    # Tools/vehicle_from_template.py most recently produced rather than a copy that can
+    # drift. The panels are plain static meshes because the vehicle pawn keeps its
+    # physics only.
+    vehicle_origin = unreal.Vector(-1600.0, 600.0, 0.0)
+    vehicle_systems = ("SM_Vehicle_Body", "SM_Vehicle_Trim", "SM_Vehicle_Glass",
+                       "SM_Vehicle_Lights", "SM_Vehicle_Wheels")
+    staged_vehicle = 0
+    for index, mesh_name in enumerate(vehicle_systems):
+        mesh = unreal.EditorAssetLibrary.load_asset(f"/Game/Hollywood/Vehicle/{mesh_name}")
+        if not mesh:
+            log(f"MISSING vehicle system: {mesh_name}")
+            continue
+        piece = spawn(unreal.StaticMeshActor, vehicle_origin, f"Review_Vehicle_{index:02d}")
+        if piece:
+            piece.static_mesh_component.set_static_mesh(mesh)
+            piece.static_mesh_component.set_mobility(unreal.ComponentMobility.STATIC)
+            if mesh_name == "SM_Vehicle_Body":
+                paint = unreal.EditorAssetLibrary.load_asset(
+                    "/Game/Hollywood/Vehicle/M_Vehicle_HatchPaint")
+                if paint:
+                    piece.static_mesh_component.set_material(0, paint)
+            staged_vehicle += 1
+    log(f"staged: {staged_vehicle} vehicle systems at the staging area")
+
     # --- NPC prefab -----------------------------------------------------------
     # The reusable NPC person: a collision capsule + visible MPFB body, standing
     # feet on Z 0, placed clear of the pawn so the prefab reads on its own.
@@ -211,6 +237,10 @@ try:
     cams = [
         # wide scene: character, both cubes, floor
         ("overview", unreal.Vector(700, -900, 620), unreal.Vector(0, 300, 80)),
+        # the vehicle staging, three-quarter front, same framing idea as the demo shot
+        ("vehicle", unreal.Vector(-900, -200, 260), unreal.Vector(-1600, 600, 90)),
+        # ground-level contact check: feet on the floor, shadow at the contact point
+        ("character-feet", unreal.Vector(220, -420, 45), unreal.Vector(0, 0, 25)),
         # the MPFB mannequin, mid shot
         ("character", unreal.Vector(200, -300, 160), unreal.Vector(0, 0, 85)),
         # both cubes from the south: contact shadow vs cast shadow