refactor: add stack comments to claim_batch_pipe_double_words

[partylikeits1983]

This PR adds stack comments to claim_batch_pipe_double_words, and was an opportunity to research if the call to mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory for PROOF_DATA_KEY is necessary in the claim_batch_pipe_double_words procedure.

The purpose of this PR is to close #2237 specifically point 5:

5. Refactor & clean up batch_pipe_double_words context: Add Agglayer CLAIM note & bridging in functionality #2188 (comment). Refactor & clean up batch_pipe_double_words context: Add Agglayer CLAIM note & bridging in functionality #2188 (comment)

@bobbinth left a comment here regarding the old state of the claim_batch_pipe_double_words procedure. In the comment, it is pointed out that it is not necessary to call exec.mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory for the PROOF_DATA_KEY, which is technically true.

This is the current state of the claim_batch_pipe_double_words procedure:

# Inputs: [PROOF_DATA_KEY, LEAF_DATA_KEY]
# Outputs: []
proc claim_batch_pipe_double_words
    # 1) Verify PROOF_DATA_KEY
    mem_storew_be.CLAIM_PROOF_DATA_KEY_MEM_ADDR
    adv.push_mapval
    # => [PROOF_DATA_KEY]

    push.CLAIM_PROOF_DATA_START_PTR push.CLAIM_PROOF_DATA_WORD_LEN
    exec.mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory drop
    # => []

    # 2) Verify LEAF_DATA_KEY
    mem_storew_be.CLAIM_LEAF_DATA_KEY_MEM_ADDR
    adv.push_mapval
    # => [LEAF_DATA_KEY]

    push.CLAIM_LEAF_DATA_START_PTR push.CLAIM_LEAF_DATA_WORD_LEN
    exec.mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory drop
    # => []
end

It is possible to remove the call to mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory for the PROOF_DATA_KEY, however, I think we should keep this call.

Why? Because the bridge should not have to trust that the CLAIM note (or the note calling the claim procedure), correctly inserted PROOF_DATA under PROOF_DATA_KEY in the AdviceMap. This call to mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory is in effect a sanity check. If we removed it, it's unlikely to open a possible vulnerability, however, I think we should keep it, unless there is a strong reason to remove it. Removing it would save around ~257 cycles.

Essentially this call to mem::pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory makes it so that the bridge_in component does not have to trust that the note which called the claim procedure correctly inserted PROOF_DATA under PROOF_DATA_KEY in the AdviceMap.

---

Closes #2237

[mmagician]

We should not remove the current invocation of claim_batch_pipe_double_words, but leaf data is piped to memory twice now:

1. claim -> claim_batch_pipe_double_words (piped via pipe_double_words_preimage_to_memory)
2. claim -> verify_leaf_bridge -> get_leaf_value -> (piped via pipe_preimage_to_memory)

Since both happen within the AggLayerBridge account context, the latter is not necessary