docs(enterprise): document Windows admin-tier lifecycle script path

[HughChaw (Hughhhhcoder)]

TL;DR

The Lifecycle Scripts doc only referenced the Linux admin-tier policy directory (/etc/apm/policy.d/*.json). This PR adds the Windows path (C:\ProgramData\APM\policy.d\*.json) so Windows fleet admins can find where admin-tier lifecycle scripts live.

Closes #2621.

Problem

_get_policy_scripts_dir() in src/apm_cli/core/lifecycle_scripts.py resolves the admin-tier policy directory per-platform:

def _get_policy_scripts_dir() -> Path:
    system = platform.system()
    if system == "Windows":
        return Path(r"C:\ProgramData\APM\policy.d")
    return Path("/etc/apm/policy.d")

But the docs page only documented the POSIX path, leaving Windows administrators without the correct location.

Approach

Updated every reference to the admin-tier path in docs/src/content/docs/enterprise/lifecycle-scripts.md to mention both platforms:

• Tier overview paragraph
• Script file format section
• Discovery locations table (added a note below the table)
• Trust model bullet
• Analytics use-case example

Validation

• npm ci && npm run build in docs/ — 123 pages built, all internal links valid:

  [build] 123 page(s) built
  [+] Checked 969 relative link(s) across generated pages. No broken relative links found.
  

No code changes; no tests affected.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the Enterprise “Lifecycle Scripts” documentation to include the Windows admin-tier policy directory location, aligning the docs with the platform-specific behavior of lifecycle script discovery.

Changes:

• Documented the Windows admin-tier policy path (C:\ProgramData\APM\policy.d\*.json) alongside the existing Linux/macOS path.
• Updated the admin-tier path references across the tier overview, file format section, discovery notes, trust model, and analytics example.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[HughChaw (Hughhhhcoder)]

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

[HughChaw (Hughhhhcoder)]

Updated the branch onto the latest main and resolved the documentation conflict while preserving the current lifecycle-script trust and kill-switch wording.

Validation:

• uv run --extra dev ruff check src/ tests/ passed
• uv run --extra dev ruff format --check src/ tests/ passed
• git diff --check passed
• The unit suite started successfully but stopped at an unrelated existing environment-sensitive failure in tests/unit/adapters/test_hermes_client_adapter.py::TestHermesConfigPath::test_default_config_path (the test expected /fake/home/.hermes/config.yaml, while the process resolved /Users/davis/.hermes/config.yaml).

[HughChaw (Hughhhhcoder)]

The latest pull-request workflow runs are completed with action_required (CI, CodeQL, Deploy Docs, NOTICE Drift Check, and Merge Gate). Could a maintainer approve these workflows for this first-time contributor PR when convenient? This is a workflow-permission gate; the local validation noted above remains clean apart from the unrelated environment-sensitive test.