What is the takeaway here? Heuristic exception raising? Exposing error bars and confidence figures? If it were that trivial, would they even have to leave it to the user to make the actual decision?
This doesn't help at all, and sacrifices consistency (and availability) for no clear benefit. Software that is wrong consistently (or mislabeled) can be used (or fixed by an errata). Software that aborts for harmless reasons is useless.
Stepping back a bit, this becomes partly a UX problem and partly a user education problem. Software alone is not going to be able to perfectly guess[1] why a human wants to know, so the human needs to learn enough to competently ask. Software can certainly help educate them, and I wish more software tried to level up the machine operator instead of trying to guess the right thing in the face of ignorance.
[1] Don't mention "genai". Even if the robots get to the point that they are better than me at contextualizing this sort of thing, until they assume legal liability for outcomes, humans need to make decisions.
When programming a feature like this it can be hard to spot the problem. The calculations for the backup's size can be 100% right, but still not appropriate to show.