My point is that PCs should be able to become competent enough that they ensure the outcome isn't in doubt. That urchin fighter with proficiency in Sleight of Hand? Sure, they probably aren't good enough to make automatically pick a lock. But the mid-level rogue who has, at every opportunity, made the choice "I want to be good at opening locks"? There shouldn't be many locks that person can't pick.This is Completely mistaken in how it tries to paper over a badly designed skill system with a secondary clause in that same skill system as if they are the same. It's ignoring the fact that 5e already addresses that sort of nonrolled skillcheck by telling GMs not to call for a roll when the outcome is not in doubt. Topping that off by ensuring the outcome can't be in doubt when a roll is actually called undercuts the purpose of even having a skill system that also sometimes relies on rolls & DCs
A skill system designed around conflicting logic like "Don't ask for a roll if the results are not in doubt and the results can't be in doubt when you do ask for one" is automatically a failure in how it presents a catch22 damned if you do damned if you don't design embodied by wargames where the only winning move is not to play [with either option]. GM's need far more function in a skill system than that.
Similarly, there shouldn't be any natural terrain (and not many unnatural terrains) a mid-level character with expertise in Survival can't get by in, or tracks they couldn't follow. Or a wall the mid-level character with Athletics expertise can't climb.