## The bug
Pet is set to follow. It gets attacked and defends itself (the order flips to `Attack`), or the player tells it to `come`. The player then says `stop`. The pet quietly stops following and starts idle-wandering — the player has to re-issue the order to get it back.
`ResolveStop` clears `ControlTarget`, since the transient order that is ending owns it, and then resumes the standing order. Nothing restores a target, so the resumed `Follow` has none. `DoOrderFollow` checks for a target before anything else, finds none on the very next think, says "I have no one to follow" and cancels the order to `None`:
```
follow standing order=Follow target=set persist=Follow cur=0.2 => move=0.3
attacked (defends) order=Attack target=set persist=Follow cur=0.2 => move=0.3
stop issued order=Follow target=null persist=Follow cur=0.2 => move=0.3
next think order=None target=null persist=Follow cur=0.4 => move=0.9
```
Two things go wrong at once:
- `PersistentOrder` still reads `Follow` while `ControlOrder` is `None`, so the pet never recovers on its own.
- The pace falls from the active clock to the passive one. A shard that tunes `SetMoveSpeed(active, passive)` sees a following pet drop from its active move speed to its passive one for no visible reason — which is how this surfaced.
Era-independent. Guard is unaffected: `DoOrderGuard` works off `ControlMaster`, not `ControlTarget`.
## The fix
A standing `Follow` does not always mean "follow the master" — a pet friend can point it elsewhere with `all follow me` / `*follow me` (0x163, 0x16C) or `*follow` plus a target pick. So `SetPersistentOrder` remembers the target the standing order was given, and `ResumePersistentOrder` restores it, falling back to the master only when that target is gone. The field is runtime-only, like `PersistentOrder` itself.
Doing this in `ResumePersistentOrder` rather than `ResolveStop` also covers the Friend/Unfriend/Transfer resumes, where `ControlTarget` points at a third party and the pet would otherwise have resumed its follow on *them*. It matches what `HandleInvalidControlTarget` already does before its own resume.
## Tests
`Stop_WhileAttacking_FallsBackToPersistentFollow` already existed and passed, because it asserted the resumed order without checking for a target or driving a think tick. Three tests added alongside it:
- `Stop_WhileAttacking_ResumedFollowTargetsTheMaster`
- `Stop_WhileAttacking_ResumedFollowKeepsAPetFriendAsItsTarget` — a friend's follow order is not hijacked back to the owner
- `Stop_WhileAttacking_ResumedFollowSurvivesTheNextThink` — the one that catches the cancellation
Each was confirmed to fail without the change (`Expected: Follow, Actual: None`; wrong target). Full suites green: 782 UOContent, 869 Server.
114dbba6e2