That credible threat extended far enough that the GM was not required to leap into adversarial hostile GM territory to influence behavior & players knew the very real risk of coming out worse than they started if they ignored it.
I don't consider "consequences" to be "adversarial hostile GM territory". The players act and there are consequences. Some good, some bad. Sometimes they make reasonable decisions that are guaranteed to have bad outcomes because they have incomplete information (I.e. Assuming an "evil outsider" is a demon, ignoring creature from the shadowfell or feywild) and their characters have bad die rolls (failed religion/Arcana checks). Sometimes the players just do something reckless or ignore in game advice (the "1 for All" skits are replete with the players making bad choices even after the GM explicitly telegraphs the consequences of said choice)
Actually, one interesting thing in 1 For All is that they almost never blame Patrick. When Nixie kills Evandra with a fireball, Eva blames Nicole. When Nixie fireballs a guard, Eva and Anthony yell at Nicole because they know the whole guard force will be called.
So, if I remind them it isn't safe here (because in Step 1 of the play loop it should be evident why their characters know it isn't safe) and they still make camp, unless they do something very tricky to hide/conceal themselves, they will find out why
it isn't safe.
And that isn't adversarial. Its just foreseeable consequences.
(See the 1 for All where their stuff is stolen overnight)
And if there is a time constraint their characters are aware of, or should be aware of and I describe that in Step 1 (or even in that hazy "make an knowledge check to see what you know about the Fire Swamp" that can happen as part of Step 2) and they still make camp so they miss their time box, they will get that Step 3 result.
the unreasonable hurdle that RAW places on a GM who needs to allow passage of time in step one
of the playloop
or do anything but say "ok" in step 3
of the playloop
if the players want to take a rest they shouldn't for whatever reason.
I see no unreasonable burden. That just sounds like running a game.
If a group shouldn't do something (and they know they shouldn't do it) and the players decide to do it anyway....well that's player agency. Player agency always
has the option to impact the game. That is kind of the point.
This should be a teachable moment, where the players learn how bad things happen to foolish people. Most players will actually learn and be better players over time.
Using 1 for All as an example, if the players are bad players who simply never learn, no rules can fix that. (Patrick really should start a campaign with the paladins, the cleric, and mayyyybe the druid)
If a DM has a time constraint or a dangerous environment and isn't prepared for things to go wrong, well, that's on them. Failure is always an option and the GM should at least have spent 5 minutes on general notes on how to react if the players fail.