What makes a grant meaningful rather than nominal
Consent, as an authorization control, only does real work when the person granting it can see a specific, understandable description of what's being requested, and can decline it without losing access to something unrelated. A request that's vague, or that bundles unrelated permissions behind a single approve action, technically obtains agreement but doesn't give the person a genuine choice about any one part of it.
This is why scoping matters as much as consent itself: the two are meant to work together, with scope defining the specific thing being requested and consent being the deliberate agreement to that specific thing, not to whatever superset the requester found convenient to ask for.
Consent fatigue undermines the whole mechanism
A person who is asked to approve requests constantly, especially ones that look similar to each other, tends to stop reading them carefully and starts approving on reflex. This is a predictable consequence of over-using consent prompts for low-stakes decisions, and it degrades the prompt's usefulness for the moments that actually matter — a system that reserves explicit consent for genuinely consequential requests keeps the signal meaningful for longer than one that asks constantly.