Thanks for the detailed explanation.  Seems like you could just pick a seed that is known to order things into a different order.  Alternately, given that this is only used by the `--order defined with --seed` example below, I think you can get away with having that example pick a random seed, and do away with this complex let entirely.  My thinking there is that a "bad" seed (i.e. one that would cause the examples to be shuffled into the order they started in) causes a false positive: the example will still pass; it just won't demonstrate that the examples aren't being shuffled.  However, it is statistically unlikely for that to happen (and it'll probably never happen multiple times in a row), and given that it's a false positive and not a false negative, and we're dealing with randomness here...I'm OK with that.  We'll still see the example fail if we ever change the behavior so that it shuffles the examples.

In short, this feels like a very heavyweight approach with little benefit.