Add redacted route quality review runbook, synthetic fixture, and tests

[Disaster-Terminator]

Motivation

• Provide operators a concise, auditable workflow for running redacted route decision reviews without relying on raw prompts or private logs.
• Ensure imports and evaluations enforce the contract that expect is a product-level route_id and not a deployment target_model.
• Supply a tiny synthetic redacted fixture so tooling and CI can validate the redaction and route-id expectations.

Description

• Add an operator runbook at docs/runbooks/redacted-route-quality-review.md describing JSONL collection rules, required fields (text, expect, redacted), import and review flows, and safe PASS/FAIL interpretation.
• Add a small synthetic redacted sample tests/samples/redacted_review_fixture.jsonl that contains redacted:true and expect:"strong" for tooling checks.
• Extend tests/test_import_review_samples.py to import Path and add two tests that assert the fixture remains redacted and that convert_review_samples accepts it when validating against a set of allowed route_ids.
• Keep runtime routing behavior unchanged and avoid adding production samples or secrets.

Testing

• Ran uv run python -m pytest -q and all tests passed (152 passed, 1 warning).
• Ran uv run python scripts/eval_routes.py --mock-embeddings and the eval run completed successfully (10 eval case(s) passed).

---

Codex Task

[sourcery-ai]

Hi @Disaster-Terminator! 👋

Your private repo does not have access to Sourcery.

Please upgrade to continue using Sourcery ✨

[qodo-code-review]

ⓘ You've reached your Qodo monthly free-tier limit. Reviews pause until next month — upgrade your plan to continue now, or link your paid account if you already have one.