docs(chunk): fix a mode name the rename missed

[vilenarios]

What changed

One comment. composite-tx-boundary-source.test.ts still referred to CHUNK_PEER_ORIGIN_MODE=shadow, a value renamed to audit in #880 before it merged. config.ts rejects shadow at startup, so the comment pointed a reader at a mode that does not exist.

Caught by a post-merge grep for rename leftovers on develop. No behavior change; tests and lint pass.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 0acf2783-74e7-4902-85d0-2204a53f90d7

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9076eb9 and 7cd3104.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/data/composite-tx-boundary-source.test.ts

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 2 included reviews per hour; 1 remains after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The change updates one test comment from CHUNK_PEER_ORIGIN_MODE=shadow to CHUNK_PEER_ORIGIN_MODE=audit. Test logic and behavior remain unchanged.

Changes

Source Attribution

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Source attribution comment update src/data/composite-tx-boundary-source.test.ts	The comment now references CHUNK_PEER_ORIGIN_MODE=audit. No test logic changed.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 7cd31

This change corrects documentation in a test comment to use the current audit mode name. It introduces no runtime behavior change and is ready to merge.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the documentation-only fix for a mode name missed during a rename.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description accurately explains the comment update from shadow to audit and states that behavior is unchanged.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 1…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch docs/chunk-peer-origin-mode-rename-leftover

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.05%. Comparing base (9076eb9) to head (7cd3104).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #886      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    80.86%   81.05%   +0.19%     
===========================================
  Files          145      145              
  Lines        58383    58383              
  Branches      4567     4570       +3     
===========================================
+ Hits         47210    47325     +115     
+ Misses       11115    11007     -108     
+ Partials        58       51       -7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.