Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In `getNodeByPrefix`, the warning log for additional matches uses `match.Name`, which refers to the previously selected node instead of the current conflicting node (`k`); this makes the log misleading and likely not what you intended to surface for debugging.
- The selection logic in `getNodeByPrefix` compares keys lexicographically (`k < match.Name`), but the comment says it should favor the 'closest match' and 'most likely requested node'; consider aligning the implementation with that intent (e.g., preferring the shortest matching name or longest common prefix) or adjusting the comment to reflect the actual behavior.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/listener/resources/node_store.go" line_range="109-110" />
<code_context>
+
+	var match *nodeWrap
+	for k, v := range s.nodes {
+		if strings.HasPrefix(k, prefix) {
+			if match != nil {
+				log.Warnf("Additional nodes match prefix %q: %s", prefix, match.Name)
+			}
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue:** Warn log for additional matches logs the previous match name instead of the newly found conflicting key, which can be misleading.

Inside the `if match != nil` block, the warning logs `match.Name` (the already selected node) instead of the newly found key `k`. This makes the warning misleading about which node is the “additional” match. Please log `k`, or both `k` and `match.Name`, so the conflicting entries are clearly identified.
</issue_to_address>

### Comment 2
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/listener/resources/node_store.go" line_range="113-120" />
<code_context>
+			if match != nil {
+				log.Warnf("Additional nodes match prefix %q: %s", prefix, match.Name)
+			}
+			if match == nil || k < match.Name {
+				// favor the closest match, whether the prefix matches more
+				// of the string. This serves two purposes:
+				//   1. it is deterministic
+				//   2. it returns the most likely requested node of the multiple
+				//      matches
+				match = v
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion:** Lexicographical comparison does not really implement the "closest match" heuristic described in the comment.

The logic here returns the lexicographically smallest `k`, which is deterministic but not necessarily the “closest” match (e.g., `ip-10-0-24-9a` vs `ip-10-0-24-9z`). If the intent is a true notion of closeness (e.g., minimal suffix length or another distance metric), the comparison should be updated. Otherwise, consider rephrasing the comment to emphasize determinism and tie-breaking rather than semantic closeness or “most likely requested node.”

```suggestion
			if match == nil || k < match.Name {
				// favor a deterministic match by choosing the lexicographically
				// smallest node name among matches. This serves two purposes:
				//   1. it is deterministic
				//   2. it provides a stable tie-breaker when multiple nodes
				//      match the same prefix, but does not guarantee semantic
				//      "closeness" to the requested node name
				match = v
			}
```
</issue_to_address>