docs: add "out of scope / tracked follow-ups" section to the port plan ($4)

Names the boundary of what BR-1..BR-8 delivers, so the gaps are written
down rather than silently assumed (the very thing that breeds whack-a-mole):
FU-1 transparency/sorting (BR-9 candidate, area unmapped), FU-2 dungeon
visibility scaling #95 (plausibly helped by BR-4/BR-6 but NOT guaranteed -
re-measure after), FU-3 LOD/degrades, FU-4 picking, FU-5 the ~30 open
questions (in the comparison doc $6), FU-6 verification top-up before
BR-8b lighting. None blocks BR-1..BR-8; each becomes its own item.

The #95 dungeon-scaling follow-up was previously raised only verbally -
now tracked in the plan. Sections 4/5 renumbered to 5/6.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/plans/2026-06-11-building-render-port-plan.md

@@ -242,7 +242,47 @@ workaround.
   fold its findings in as a BR-9 candidate after review (the AlphaList
   deferral machinery is already decompiled in the Area 1 file).
 
-## 4. Sequencing summary
+## 4. Explicitly out of scope — tracked follow-ups (NOT covered by BR-1…BR-8)
+
+Completing BR-1 through BR-8 lands the building/interior **drawing
+discipline** and the collision rearchitecture. It does **not** cover the
+items below. They are named here so the boundary of what the campaign
+delivers is written down, not assumed — each becomes its own roadmap item or
+issue, none blocks BR-1…BR-8.
+
+- **FU-1 — Transparency / draw-sorting (→ BR-9 candidate).** Retail's
+  `DrawSortCell` + AlphaList deferral (decompiled in
+  `2026-06-11-holistic-map/wf1-gfxobj-draw.md`) governs water surfaces,
+  translucent windows, and alpha-blend ordering. The area's *map never
+  completed* (agent hit the token limit), so there are no divergences yet —
+  scope it before promoting to BR-9. **Severity: medium; user-visible as
+  wrong window/water compositing.**
+- **FU-2 — Dungeon visibility scaling (#95).** The 8 phases are
+  Holtburg-building-shaped. Dungeons share the EnvCell/portal discipline so
+  they benefit *automatically*, and BR-4's tighter flood admission
+  (no-distance-constant + screen-clip rejection + cell-loaded gate)
+  **plausibly** shrinks #95's 135-cells/frame blowup — but #95 is a
+  disconnected-landblock *seeding* problem that BR-4 is not guaranteed to
+  fix. **Re-measure #95 after BR-4/BR-6 land; if still blown, it needs its
+  own phase.** Do not assume the building port closes it.
+- **FU-3 — Distance LOD / degrades (= BR-8c, optional).** Per-part degrade
+  selection beyond humanoids; far models stay base-detail until picked up.
+- **FU-4 — Picking refinements** (4 low-severity divergences,
+  `wf2-picking-selection.md`). Defer; file as issues if/when the port
+  changes what is clickable (e.g. building shells, baked fills).
+- **FU-5 — The ~30 open questions** live in the comparison doc §6
+  (`2026-06-11-building-render-acdream-vs-retail-comparison.md`). The
+  load-bearing ones are referenced inline in the phases that consume them
+  (e.g. `LScape::draw` clip behavior for BR-2/BR-3, the near-W constant,
+  `DrawPortal` mode-3 seal-on-failure for unstreamed interiors); the rest
+  are pinned during implementation, not before.
+- **FU-6 — Verification top-up.** ~36/76 divergences remain UNVERIFIED (the
+  overnight resume was stopped to preserve budget; both runs are resumable
+  by ID — see comparison §7). Run a cheap resume before **BR-8b lighting**
+  scoping (the one phase that leans on unverified rows) and before promoting
+  FU-1 to BR-9.
+
+## 5. Sequencing summary
 
 ```
 BR-1 (surface gate)          — first; standalone visual win, lowest risk
@@ -260,7 +300,7 @@ retail citations, named user visual gate, roadmap/ISSUES updated in the same
 session, and the render digest updated when a phase closes one of the named
 bugs.
 
-## 5. Approval asks
+## 6. Approval asks
 
 1. Approve the plan shape + ordering (BR-1 → BR-8, BR-7 parallel-capable).
 2. Approve the deletions implied by BR-3/BR-6 (shell-chop enforcement,