feat(shared-data): add lv96 shared data definitions (#16749)

<!--
Thanks for taking the time to open a Pull Request (PR)! Please make sure
you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing
Guide:


https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests

GitHub provides robust markdown to format your PR. Links, diagrams,
pictures, and videos along with text formatting make it possible to
create a rich and informative PR. For more information on GitHub
markdown, see:


https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax

To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out
the sections below to the best of your ability!
-->

# Overview

Add 200ul pipette definitions to shared data
<!--
Describe your PR at a high level. State acceptance criteria and how this
PR fits into other work. Link issues, PRs, and other relevant resources.
-->

## Test Plan and Hands on Testing

<!--
Describe your testing of the PR. Emphasize testing not reflected in the
code. Attach protocols, logs, screenshots and any other assets that
support your testing.
-->

## Changelog

<!--
List changes introduced by this PR considering future developers and the
end user. Give careful thought and clear documentation to breaking
changes.
-->

## Review requests

<!--
- What do you need from reviewers to feel confident this PR is ready to
merge?
- Ask questions.
-->

## Risk assessment
This will not work out of the box until we get aspirate/dispense pipette
functions from the factory.
<!--
- Indicate the level of attention this PR needs.
- Provide context to guide reviewers.
- Discuss trade-offs, coupling, and side effects.
- Look for the possibility, even if you think it's small, that your
change may affect some other part of the system.
- For instance, changing return tip behavior may also change the
behavior of labware calibration.
- How do your unit tests and on hands on testing mitigate this PR's
risks and the risk of future regressions?
- Especially in high risk PRs, explain how you know your testing is
enough.
-->

shared-data/js/__tests__/pipetteSchemaV2.test.ts

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ describe('test schema against all liquid specs definitions', () => {
     })
 
     it(`second parent dir matches pipette model: ${liquidPath}`, () => {
-      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
+      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p200', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
         path.basename(path.dirname(path.dirname(liquidPath)))
       )
     })
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ describe('test schema against all geometry specs definitions', () => {
     })
 
     it(`parent dir matches pipette model: ${geometryPath}`, () => {
-      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
+      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p200', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
         path.basename(path.dirname(geometryPath))
       )
     })
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ describe('test schema against all general specs definitions', () => {
     })
 
     it(`parent dir matches pipette model: ${generalPath}`, () => {
-      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
+      expect(['p10', 'p20', 'p50', 'p200', 'p300', 'p1000']).toContain(
         path.basename(path.dirname(generalPath))
       )
     })