Explaining Managed Settings Precedence to a Team Lead

Your organization's IT team deploys managed settings containing:

{
  "permissions": {
    "deny": ["Bash(aws s3 rm *)", "Bash(aws iam *)"]
  }
}

A team lead wants faster S3 cleanup in a scratch environment and proposes adding this to the team's committed .claude/settings.json:

{
  "permissions": {
    "allow": ["Bash(aws s3 rm *)"]
  }
}

Their reasoning: "project settings are specific to our team's repo, so they should take precedence over a generic org-wide policy for our use case."

1. Will this achieve the team lead's goal? Explain using the settings precedence chain and how it applies specifically to permissions rules.
2. Would passing --allowedTools "Bash(aws s3 rm *)" as a CLI flag when launching Claude Code change the outcome? Why or why not?
3. Name one managed-only setting that would make the team lead's proposed change not just ineffective, but literally never evaluated at all — and explain the practical difference between "ineffective" and "never evaluated."