Corrected search index limitations explanation

[ruchira-net]

Updated the limitations section to remove references to public repositories deleted before the index was created as it's wrong to say deleted code before the index was created will be NOT be included. It will be included is the right thing to say and it's already explained in the sentence after that.

Why:

Closes:

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

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.

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[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
copilot/concepts/completions/code-referencing.md	fpt ghec	fpt ghec

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

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[Sharra-writes]

@ruchira-net Thanks for opening a PR! This reads to me more like hedging than a declaration (note the "may not be included"), just in case some results are missing for whatever reason. The next sentence also uses hedging language ("may return matches"). I will check in about the phrasing, but the way it's punctuated definitely reads like it was added after the fact. The sentence is actually pretty awkward, and should probably be revised even if that clause is left in.