What harder difficulties? M&B has normal, easy and even easier.
Those are labels, and what they really mean is subjective. It's like how the smallest value meal you can buy is called "medium", or how the standard size pizza is called "large".
Regardless I think I understand what you mean in principle. eg. games like Dark Souls which have a reputation for being hard or brutal, are in fact designed with the fail state internalised to gameplay. You are expected to die, there are consequences for it and the give and take of death and recovery is part of the gameplay loop. You never have to reload a save game (in most such games it isn't even possible to do so) because the gameplay takes care of allowing you to continue to play and progress in spite of the setback. MMO's also have to work that way, since you can't reload from a save. I am a big fan of that paradigm, and I lose a measure of respect for games which feel like they flow better when you rely on restoring save games after failure events.
Warband sat on the edge of this for me, where I would mostly discipline myself not to reload after failures, but some areas I would say "nope, this is stupid, I'm going to reload and try that again." Bannerlord, being in a beta state, I reload much more liberally since I'm playing more to test than for an immersed progression experience... as well as the fact that it currently contains more scenarios where the fail event consequences feel stupid.
Interestingly when it comes to persuasion Warband's system was less transparant, and to the extent we could tell what was going on it wasn't particularly compelling either. It used seeded values for the random component so you couldn't save scum anyway. There is merit in that, but it remains the case that it is not satisfying to feel like critical success points of the game come down to a dice roll.