Even better if the language supports scoping comments to particular code blocks, and comments can be made in markdown/mermaid (or equivalent) so you can diagram, link and TODO comments.

Documentation tooling should be able to make a good job of constructing a class/function DAG with scoped commentary. This is kind of a reversal of Literal documentation, but I suspect it may be more maintainable by teams.

Literal docs only seem to go in one direction, that is documentation->code, not the other way around. This I guess is more in-line with scientific hypotheses. Literal tests may be even more tricky as TDD doesn't gel well with Literal hypotheses.

I guess a Doc-driven dev process would be a novel approach here, and probably more usable than AI-supported systems. Copilot has been quite divisive on it's effectiveness.

DDD in that every eg. Class requires a comment and a test even if they are blank, to force at least a thought about them. Having a code manifest at the root of a repo can also be used to configure the envs the code runs in, and the integration tests that it needs to do both local and in-place.

Lastly, as mentioned elsewhere, logs are comments as well, and again would be well to be scoped in the language.