Correct duplicate branch-paths-filter.md paragraph

[norwd]

Why:

Closes: #38444

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):

I've reworded the second of two duplicate paragraphs to match the surrounding context. Namely, instead of saying specifying both branches: [...] and paths: [...] means both conditions must be satisfied twice, the second time it talks about tags: [...] instead (since it's under the Running your workflow only when a push of specific tags occurs heading).

Check off the following:

• A subject matter expert (SME) has reviewed the technical accuracy of the content in this PR. In most cases, the author can be the SME. Open source contributions may require an SME review from GitHub staff.
• The changes in this PR meet the docs fundamentals that are required for all content.
• All CI checks are passing and the changes look good in the review environment.

[github-actions]

How to review these changes 👓

Thank you for your contribution. To review these changes, choose one of the following options:

• Spin up a codespace
• Set up a local development environment

A Hubber will need to deploy your changes internally to review.

Table of review links

Note: Please update the URL for your staging server or codespace.

The table shows the files in the content directory that were changed in this pull request. This helps you review your changes on a staging server. Changes to the data directory are not included in this table.

Source	Review	Production	What Changed
actions/writing-workflows/choosing-when-your-workflow-runs/events-that-trigger-workflows.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.13	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.13

Key: fpt: Free, Pro, Team; ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud; ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[Sharra-writes]

@norwd Looking at this more closely, isn't the duplicate note under "Running your workflow only when a push affects specific files"? The tags section is the one above. I'm going to check in with our SMEs about the necessity for having a note there at all, just to make sure it's needed and to keep this from getting held up more, but I thought I would point that out in case they agree that the note in that section needs to be included and updated. 💛

[Sharra-writes]

@norwd Okay, word from the SMEs is: only one note is necessary. Simplest fix would be to delete the second one. If, however, you would rather create an example with tag, path, and branch, update the reusable, and delete the first note instead, that was also a solution they proposed as acceptable.

[norwd]

...Simplest fix would be to delete the second one...

Seems, fair enough, I'll make that update now 👍

[Sharra-writes]

Perfect! I'll get this added to the merge queue once checks are passing.

[github-actions]

Thanks very much for contributing! Your pull request has been merged 🎉 You should see your changes appear on the site in approximately 24 hours. If you're looking for your next contribution, check out our help wanted issues ⚡