Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- The new `effectiveRules := baseRules.Union(addedRules).Difference(removedRules)` logic changes precedence between enabled and disabled rules (a rule present in both sets now ends up disabled); if this is intentional, consider adding a brief comment to document the expected precedence to avoid confusion for future changes.
- Iterating over `effectiveRules` (a set) may produce a non-deterministic rule order compared to the previous slice-based iteration; if rule order is used anywhere (e.g., for stable outputs or comparisons), consider sorting the keys or otherwise preserving a deterministic order.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/complianceoperator/dispatchers/complianceoperatortailoredprofiles.go" line_range="91-93" />
<code_context>
-		})
-	}
-	for _, rule := range tailoredProfile.Spec.EnableRules {
+	effectiveRules := baseRules.Union(addedRules).Difference(removedRules)
+
+	for rule := range effectiveRules {
 		protoProfile.Rules = append(protoProfile.Rules, &storage.ComplianceOperatorProfile_Rule{
-			Name: rule.Name,
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** Enable vs disable precedence has changed from "enable wins" to "disable wins" for the same rule name.

With the old logic we filtered out `removedRules` from the base, then always appended `EnableRules`, so an explicitly enabled rule “won” even if also disabled. With the new `(base ∪ added) − removed` logic, any rule in both `EnableRules` and `DisableRules` is now dropped. Please confirm whether this precedence change is intended per the Compliance Operator spec and existing consumers; if not, we should adjust the set operations to keep explicitly enabled rules.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 2
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/complianceoperator/dispatchers/complianceoperatortailoredprofiles.go" line_range="93-85" />
<code_context>
-	for _, rule := range tailoredProfile.Spec.EnableRules {
+	effectiveRules := baseRules.Union(addedRules).Difference(removedRules)
+
+	for rule := range effectiveRules {
 		protoProfile.Rules = append(protoProfile.Rules, &storage.ComplianceOperatorProfile_Rule{
-			Name: rule.Name,
+			Name: rule,
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** Iteration over the set may introduce non-deterministic rule ordering compared to the previous slice-based approach.

The prior version produced a stable sequence: base profile rules (minus disabled) followed by enabled rules in declaration order. Iterating a set backed by a map will yield effectively random ordering between runs, which may affect consumers that expect deterministic or base‑then‑tailored ordering (e.g., diffs, caching, or UIs). If order is significant, keep using the set only for de‑duplication, but iterate the base and enabled rules in their original order and append only if not disabled and not yet seen.
</issue_to_address>