docs(signals): move orphaned review.enrichment doc comment to its function

[lourincedaging0-commits]

Closes #8021

What

src/signals/focus-manifest.ts had two doc blocks stacked in front of resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig: its own (#2060) plus the review.enrichment analyzer-toggles block (#2050) — which actually documents resolveEnrichmentAnalyzerToggles, defined 24 lines later with no comment of its own (it lost its comment in a reorder).

Moved the #2050 block down to sit directly above resolveEnrichmentAnalyzerToggles, leaving resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig with only its own #2060 comment.

Scope

• Comment-only — verified the diff contains only comment lines (net +3/-3, a pure move). No code, behavior, or export change.
• Parity-neutral: the engine twin (packages/loopover-engine/src/focus-manifest.ts) already carries its own separately-worded #2050 comment, so check-engine-parity doesn't compare these doc blocks.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-22 14:06:30 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 98/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a pure comment-move fix: the stray review.enrichment/#2050 doc block that was stacked above resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig is relocated to sit directly above resolveEnrichmentAnalyzerToggles, the function it actually describes, leaving resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig with only its own #2060 comment. The full-file content confirms both blocks now sit in the correct places and nothing else in the file changed. This closes #8021 exactly as described, is comment-only (no behavior/export change), and needs no test coverage since no code changed.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The external brief's flag on the 'feat(config): add review.enrichment analyzer per-lane toggles #2050' issue-reference number as a 'magic number' is not applicable here — it's an issue-tracker reference in a comment, not a code literal needing a named constant.
• None needed beyond what's already done — the move is clean and minimal.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8021
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 82 registered-repo PR(s), 33 merged, 5 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	lourincedaging0-commits; Gittensor profile; 82 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff removes the #2050 doc block from above resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig and inserts it directly above resolveEnrichmentAnalyzerToggles, leaving resolveReviewAutoReviewConfig with only its own #2060 comment, matching both deliverables exactly.

Review context

• Author: lourincedaging0-commits
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: HTML
• Official Gittensor activity: 82 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.