A NetDevOps team reviews a pull request that automates QoS on Catalyst switches. The git diff shows hunks with + and - lines across two files, one staged change, and one unstaged edit. The reviewer must confirm only the intended policy-map change will commit. Which reading git diff output behavior should the reviewer use to see what changed accurately?

The correct approach uses both views because Git compares different snapshots: git diff shows changes in the working tree that are not staged, while git diff --staged (also called --cached) shows the index compared with the latest commit. Reviewing both patch outputs lets the reviewer examine the actual line-level edits in each file and verify that the intended policy-map change—and only the intended change—is staged for the commit. Comparing git diff HEAD with the working tree is a useful way to see the combined tracked changes, but it merges staged and unstaged work into one view, so it does not establish which lines will be committed. The --stat summary efficiently reports changed-file counts and line totals, but omits the hunks needed to validate the QoS policy content. Inspecting only --cached can verify the proposed commit’s staged patch, but it fails to account for the separate unstaged edit when the task is to review all changes accurately. Exam caveat: ordinary git diff output does not include untracked files, which must first be added or inspected separately. Practical check: run git status, inspect both patch views, and confirm the staged diff contains only the intended policy-map change before committing.