WT-16660 bytes_total increment not protected by reconciliation panic boundary

[mariammojid]

Summarize the reason behind this change (this might be the problem you're solving, or the context around the request) and the solution you have chosen.

[github-actions]

Thanks for creating a pull request! Please answer the questions below by editing this comment — completing this upfront typically speeds up the review process.

Checklist before requesting a review

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I can point to specific tests that would catch regressions of this change, or I've documented why existing test coverage is sufficient.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation, or no documentation change is needed.

What makes this change safe?

Help reviewers focus their attention by answering these questions:

• Data format compatibility: Does this change modify the format of WT data or metadata? If so, does this change support non-disruptive upgrade of older systems?
• Test coverage: Which specific tests validate your change? (Name the test files/functions that would fail if your change were reverted)
• Risk assessment: What functionality could break if this change has bugs? How thoroughly have you tested edge cases?
• Review focus: What aspects would you want a teammate to double-check?

Type of change made in this PR

• Functional change
• Test-only change
• Refactor-only change
• Other non-functional change

References:

• Risk level guide
• Testing frameworks

[wiredtiger-prbot]

Woohoo, the code changed in this PR is pretty well tested! 🎉

Metric (for added/changed code)	Coverage
Line coverage	80% (8/10)
Branch coverage	90% (9/10)

• Code change report
• Code coverage report (catch2)
• Code coverage report (full)

⚠️ This PR touches methods that have an extremely high complexity score!