[v1ne]

In theory, it's easy. But as you see, in practice, it's very difficult because the attacker doesn't have to play by your rules.

The attacker can play arbitrary shenanigans, like in this example, glitching only one power rail of many to attack a crucial part, or shine light on parts of your die. And suddenly, there is only little of this "usual" behaviour that remains.

You can look at the hardening mechanisms of Hardware Security Modules or security processors, e.g. in Smart Cards, for all the effort they take in order to detect an attacker.

To come back to your original question: Burning a "wire" is not what's usually done. I consider this to be impractical, since such a "wire" fuse would be electrically weak, impeding performance of any signal travelling through that wire. The same goes for an antifuse (I interpret the "AF" in the RP2350 datasheet as "antifuse" array), which when closed also only creates a weak electrical connection. That's why you usually use fuse bits as input to CMOS switches that will then be opened or closed.

Yet, if you would distribute these fuse bits and switches and put them directly next to their usage site, I think that could achieve your goal. Yet, still, this would mean you'd now have to route the control signals to these fuses instead, which would mean you have to route high-current or high-ish-voltage signals across your chip. So, in the end, I don't see an easy solution to this fuse dilemma.