Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- The new early return in `TailoredProfileDispatcher.ProcessEvent` based on `ComplianceV2TailoredProfiles` means we now drop all tailored profile events (including deletes) when Central doesn't advertise this capability; please double‑check this aligns with expected downgrade/compat behavior and that we don't need to treat delete actions differently.
- In the tests you call `centralcaps.Set(...)` but never reset the capability state, which can leak configuration across tests in this package; consider using `t.Cleanup` or a helper to restore the previous capabilities after each test.
- In `service_impl.go` you append `centralsensor.ComplianceV2TailoredProfiles.String()` while other capabilities are appended directly as `CentralCapability` values; for consistency and to avoid type surprises, consider aligning this with how the other capabilities are added.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="central/sensor/service/service_impl.go" line_range="141" />
<code_context>
 		capabilities = append(capabilities, centralsensor.SendDeduperStateOnReconnect)
 		if features.ComplianceEnhancements.Enabled() {
 			capabilities = append(capabilities, centralsensor.ComplianceV2Integrations)
+			capabilities = append(capabilities, centralsensor.ComplianceV2TailoredProfiles.String())
 		}
 		if features.ComplianceRemediationV2.Enabled() {
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** Use the capability value consistently instead of calling `.String()` here

Other capabilities in this block (e.g. `ComplianceV2Integrations`) are appended directly, and `CentralCapability` is already a `string` type alias. Calling `.String()` here is unnecessary and may not compile if that method doesn’t exist. This should match the others, e.g.:

```go
capabilities = append(capabilities, centralsensor.ComplianceV2TailoredProfiles)
```
</issue_to_address>

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In `TestProcessEvent_V2EventHasTailoredProfileKind`, the assertion that the V2 message is at index 1 couples the test to the ordering of `ForwardMessages`; consider locating the V2 message by checking which entry has `GetComplianceOperatorProfileV2() != nil` to make the test more robust to future changes.
- The conditional in `ProcessEvent` now checks `centralcaps.Has(ComplianceV2Integrations)` and `centralcaps.Has(ComplianceV2TailoredProfiles)` separately; if this pattern is expected to recur, consider introducing a small helper (e.g., `hasComplianceV2TailoredProfilesSupport()`) to centralize the logic and make the intent clearer.