docs: align parameter descriptions in blas/base/dzasum with sibling scasum

[Planeshifter]

Description

Follow-up fixes for commits merged to develop between 2026-05-26 21:38 UTC and 2026-05-27 09:44 UTC (commits e508f182..7d900094, 15 commits).

This pull request aligns parameter descriptions in the newly added blas/base/dzasum package with the sibling blas/base/scasum package and resolves an internal inconsistency in its TypeScript declaration:

• blas/base/dzasum (1ff31b20): strideX was described as stride length and offsetX as starting index across README.md, docs/repl.txt, docs/types/index.d.ts, lib/dzasum.js, and lib/ndarray.js — the established convention across blas/base (216 JSDoc occurrences) is `x` stride length / starting index for `x`, with index increment for `x` / Starting index of `x` in REPL docs. Additionally, docs/types/index.d.ts used @returns sum in the Routine interface but @returns out in the top-level declare var; sibling scasum uses @returns out throughout. All five files now match scasum.

Related Issues

None.

Questions

No.

Other

Validation

Checked against the per-file diffs of the 15 commits merged in the window. Each finding was independently flagged by two reviewers and cross-referenced against the sibling blas/base/scasum package as well as the dominant blas/base JSDoc/REPL conventions (grep counts: 216 vs 2 for `x` stride length vs stride length; 51 vs 17 for @returns out vs @returns sum).

Deliberately excluded:

• lib/ndarray.js declared-variable ordering (viewX vs stemp) — both identifiers are equal length, so the style guide's "descending character length" rule does not mandate one ordering over the other.
• Anything in the other 14 commits in the window — the two bug reviewers and both style reviewers returned no other high-signal findings.

No bug fixes (runtime correctness) were needed: both bug auditors returned empty result sets after tracing dzasum's complex-stride arithmetic and the bernoulli/mgf isProbability refactor against the previous semantics.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

This PR was authored by Claude Code as part of an automated 24-hour commit review pass. Findings were produced by four independent reviewer subagents (two style, two bug), filtered to require either multi-agent corroboration or independent re-verification against the diff, and applied without scope expansion beyond the originating commit.

---

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
blas/base/dzasum	$\color{green}226/226$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}12/12$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}2/2$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}226/226$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.