Why this makes approving low-stakes

It is worth internalizing directly that checkpoints exist specifically so that approving something at the permission prompt is not meant to feel like a high-stakes, unrecoverable decision every single time.

Approving a write you are not fully certain about is not a one-way door. If it turns out to be wrong once you actually look at the result, /rewind is a single command away.

This is deliberately what makes it reasonable to review changes at a normal, comfortable pace rather than treating every approval as something that has to be perfectly certain in advance, since the cost of being wrong is one command, not a manual cleanup.

This is the same underlying philosophy that shapes the rest of tCode's safety model: rather than trying to make every individual decision perfectly correct up front, the system is built so that a wrong decision is cheap and fast to reverse, which is a more realistic goal for how people actually work.

This reasoning holds even for changes that touch several files at once; a checkpoint captures the entire tree in one shot, described in Why a checkpoint captures the whole tree, so a multi-file turn is exactly as reversible as a single-file one, not progressively riskier the more it touches.