Problems using `.raw()` instead of `.filter()`

Describe the bug
To get consistency between Tortoise-based and non-Tortoise based queries, I started replacing the usual <ModelClassName>.filter(...) fetches with <ModelClassName>.raw(<PlainSQLQueryString>).

It seemed to work, but I later found that saves were often not actually committing to the database. This caused some serious data consistency and workflow problems in several of my networks, which only came right after changing back to .filter(...).

Expected behavior
When using <ModelClassName>.raw(...) I was expecting the returned Model row objects to behave in the same way as the ones returned from awaiting a <ModelClassName>.filter(...) query.

Additional context
Is there a "safe" and recommended way to get Model row objects from raw SQL queries, which behave identically to those retrieved from .filter(...) ?

All help appreciated.

Start by reproducing the reported difference between ModelClassName.raw() and ModelClassName.filter(...) queries, focusing on whether returned model rows can be saved and committed. Review the raw-query and filter-query entry points and document a safe, consistent way to obtain model rows from raw SQL.