Async approval flow: is the local simulation checked against anything before being queued for bulk approval?

Really like the async-approval design in Gatekeepers — solves the real "give an agent a task, walk away, and it's stuck on step 1" problem synchronous human-in-the-loop causes.

One thing I couldn't find in the README or the individual `gatekeeper-*` package docs: when a Gatekeeper simulates an action's outcome (README: *"the Gatekeeper will simulate the outcome locally... if the agent tries to read back the results, the Gatekeeper gives it simulated results"*), is that simulation checked against anything before it's queued for the user to bulk-approve?

Concrete scenario: a user queues up 20 actions across a session, walks away, comes back and bulk-approves. If one simulation was wrong — say the GitHub Gatekeeper simulates a PR merge as clean but the real merge would actually conflict, or an email Gatekeeper simulates a send succeeding when the real recipient address is malformed — the user is approving the agent's own account of what happened, not a verified outcome. Bulk approval makes this worse than the synchronous case: more surface queued per review pass, less scrutiny per item.

Is there (or is there a plan for) any independent check — even something lightweight like a dry-run against the real API where one exists, or a diff between predicted and post-hoc-actual state — before an action reaches the approval queue? Or is the simulation trusted as-is, with human review as the only check?

Read the README and the individual `gatekeeper-*` package docs first, then trace how local simulation reaches the bulk-approval queue; no source file or test is named in the issue. Done would be a clear decision about whether simulations are independently checked, with documented scope for any proposed validation or post-hoc comparison.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.