> In this specific case, strongly typing the CryptVerificationResult as an enum would have helped. But, generalizing the problem, if you had more complicated criteria for whether that branch should be taken, it can be far too easy to save an intermediate result into a (strongly typed) variable but never end up using it in the correct way in the condition statement itself.
We can capture that requirement with something called Linear typing, but even if we don't go for a compiler-enforced consumption the creation of a universally used family of result enums brings enormous discipline and reliability to error handling. In no small part because when considering the result of such an enum, the compiler can demand a total pattern match, which forces developers to consider what that failure means in context and present SOME kind of strategy (even if it's hard failure).
The approaches of languages with type inference and more sophisticated type systems like OCaml and Haskell go even a step further because they can create workflows around these types, creating composite workflows that make it easy to handle errors. It becomes harder to ignore them, or write functions that ignore them.
One of the reasons it's so easy to write parsers in languages like Haskell is that algebraic data types and applicative functor composition make it easy and even convenient to talk about the logic within the context of non-trivial error flows. It's much more frustrating to write a parser without a combinator framework in OCaml or Haskell. Similar stories exist for Validator, Either, and Maybe/Option.
These techniques don't mandate error processing, but they make it more convenient to compose error-handling functions and offer more compiler checking when the results must be handled.