[feat][evaluation] add expt lifecycle event

[lsy357]

What type of PR is this?

fix

Check the PR title

• This PR title match the format: [<type>][<scope>] <description>. For example: [fix][backend] flaky fix
• The description of this PR title is user-oriented and clear enough for others to understand.
• Add documentation if the current PR requires user awareness at the usage level.
• This PR is written in English. PRs not in English will not be reviewed.

(Optional) Translate the PR title into Chinese

(Optional) More detailed description for this PR(en: English/zh: Chinese)

en:
zh(optional):

(Optional) Which issue(s) this PR fixes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.44361% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...es/evaluation/infra/mq/rocket/consumer/consumer.go	0.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
...ation/domain/service/expt_manage_execution_impl.go	95.08%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...luation/infra/mq/rocket/consumer/expt_lifecycle.go	78.57%	3 Missing ⚠️
...luation/infra/mq/rocket/producer/expt_event_pub.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...n/infra/mq/rocket/consumer/expt_scheduler_event.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (77.44%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #499      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.99%   77.01%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         647      649       +2     
  Lines       71513    71612      +99     
==========================================
+ Hits        55063    55153      +90     
- Misses      13142    13152      +10     
+ Partials     3308     3307       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	77.01% <77.44%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...valuation/application/convertor/experiment/expt.go	81.35% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
...modules/evaluation/application/eval_openapi_app.go	92.28% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
...d/modules/evaluation/application/experiment_app.go	85.33% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
backend/modules/evaluation/domain/entity/event.go	78.94% <ø> (ø)
backend/modules/evaluation/domain/entity/expt.go	97.89% <ø> (ø)
...uation/domain/service/expt_lifecycle_event_impl.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...luation/domain/service/expt_run_item_event_impl.go	71.04% <100.00%> (ø)
...on/domain/service/expt_run_scheduler_event_impl.go	74.47% <100.00%> (ø)
...ion/domain/service/expt_run_scheduler_mode_impl.go	86.14% <100.00%> (ø)
backend/modules/evaluation/infra/mq/rocket/conf.go	0.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 5 more

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 94d84b1...971c998. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[CozeLoop]

Requesting changes. Main blockers: (1) lifecycle notification is triggered via MQ but currently lacks an idempotency guard, so retries/duplicate deliveries can spam users with duplicate cards; (2) wrong fmt verb %s is used for int64 expt IDs in logs. Non-blocking: consider aligning MQ consumer context (logid/session) with existing consumers, and make card content depend on event.ToStatus to avoid late/duplicate event inconsistency.