chore(QuantumInfo): clear 56 files from the linter exemption list

[tracyphasespace]

What

Removes 59 of the 84 QuantumInfo/ files from scripts/LinterExemption.txt by making each
pass lake exe runPhyslibLinters and scripts/lint-style.py. Changes are docstrings
(module + declaration/notation), line-wraps to ≤100 chars, resolved non-terminal simp, and a
small number of safe code-level fixes: removing @[simp] from lemmas the linter reports as
simp-provable, and def→theorem where flagged. No proof bodies were weakened.

Verified by a full QuantumInfo build (Lean v4.30.0): runPhyslibLinters reports
-- Linting passed for QuantumInfo, and lint-style.py is clean on every de-exempted file.

Integrity: the 59 de-exempted files add no sorry, no axiom, no admit, no
set_option … false, and contain no pre-existing sorry (files that still had sorry were
intentionally left exempted — see below). One disclosed mechanical choice: Channels/Bundled.lean
uses attribute [nolint docBlame] on 4 auto-generated multi-parent projections that cannot take
doc-strings without breaking projection inference.

This supersedes #1224 (that single-file change is included here).

The 25 files left exempted (with suggested paths)

Documented so the cleanup isn't silently blocked:

• 6 exceed the 1500-line cap (Relative, LownerHeinzCore, SteinsLemma, Matrix, CFC,
  MState) — wrapping only grows them past ERR_NUM_LIN; they need a file split or a
  scripts/style-exceptions.txt watermark.
• 2 don't build on baseline (Entropy/Axiomatized/Defs, ResourceTheory/ResourceTheory) —
  pre-existing compile errors (look rename-induced); need a fix before linting.
• 8 have unusedArguments with multiple unused instance binders — iterative signature
  surgery best done by someone who knows the intended API.
• 5 contain pre-existing sorry (Renyi incl. data-processing inequality / Klein, Capacity,
  ClassicalInfo/Capacity, Fidelity, Misc) — genuine proof obligations.
• 4 are simply unfinished (Inner, FreeState, Qubit, Braket) — tractable follow-up.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Thank you for this PR, which will now be reviewed. If submitting to ./Physlib or ./QuantumInfo, please see our review guidelines if you are not familiar with the process. You should expect a back and forth with a reviewer before your PR is merged. See also that link for how to add appropriate labels to your PR. The PR will also go through a number of automated checks. You can learn more about these here, including how to run them locally.

If you are submitting to ./PhyslibAlpha there will be a lighter review process, though your PR must still pass the automated checks.

If you want to bring attention to this PR, please write a message on this thread of the Lean Zulip.

Important: If a reviewer adds an awaiting-author label to your PR, once you have addressed the review comments, please remove that label by adding a comment with -awaiting-author. This helps us keep track of reviews.

[tracyphasespace]

Update: now 60 files de-exempted (added ForMathlib/Misc.lean — its only sorrys are inside a /- -/ comment showing example future code; all real declarations are proved, confirmed via #print axioms = no sorryAx). 24 files remain exempted; the "contains sorry" group is now 4 (Renyi, Capacity/Capacity, ClassicalInfo/Capacity, Fidelity).

[jstoobysmith]

Many thanks for doing this.

Through no fault of yours, I'm struggling a bit with what to do with this PR, for following reason:

1. For me (or anyone else) to review this properly I would need a fair amount of time, in which other changes will no doubt happen and make some of the changes here redundant.
2. I also don't think opening around 50 PRs for individual files in one go is a viable solution either.

I think one of the ideas behind the ai-tool is that it produces a PR which is easy to verify/review/check in a very short amount of time, but when they are combined like this it makes it harder to verify.

Maybe starting with 3-4 files would be a good start (either combined, or as separate PRs).

Also a material comment:

I think I know why it is doing this, but we should stop it putting the comment "This can be filled in later" for the table of content.