Scoped-delete semantics for --filter + --delete-unmatched

### Problem or use case

In #215, combining `--filter` with `--delete-unmatched` was intentionally left to fail fast until
scoped-delete semantics are designed:

> Combining `--filter` with `--delete-unmatched` should fail fast with a clear error until
> scoped-delete semantics are designed.

Designing and enabling that combination would allow deletion tracking for a filtered subset of the
artifact tree, rather than requiring a full-tree `--delete-unmatched` run just to track any
deletions at all.

### Proposed solution

Is there a plan or timeline for designing scoped-delete semantics, or a place to follow along?

As a workaround, expanding the following:

```diff
export function hasMutuallyExclusivePublishOptions(
deleteUnmatched: boolean,
_commitId?: string,
hasFilter = false
): boolean {
- return deleteUnmatched && hasFilter;
+ return deleteUnmatched && hasFilter && !_commitId;
}
```

produced correctly-scoped create/update/delete requests when tested against a simple,
self-contained API with no shared dependencies, but this doesn't address resources with shared dependencies that would need more thoughtful deletion orchestration.

### Affected command

apiops publish

Inizia con il comando apiops publish e hasMutuallyExclusivePublishOptions, quindi esamina l’issue #215 per il comportamento fail-fast esistente. Definisci la semantica di scoped-delete per gli alberi di artefatti filtrati, incluse le dipendenze condivise, e documenta o implementa il comportamento concordato affinché le richieste filtrate di Create, Update e Delete siano orchestrate correttamente.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.