sandbox or just restriction element?

when i read the descriptions of the function of the comodo “sandbox”, it looks more like a “access restriction tool” than like a sandbox.
a sandbox let changes happen and then it will undo this changes (which was virtual all the time), after the program is closed.
this here seems not to be really a sandbox. or do i misunderstand something?

Comodo takes a big headache with the sandboxing and tries to restrict all the programs and at the same time to allow everything to run. Anyway it’s far not the full implementation of SandBoxie. I saw there switches to turn on and off virtualisation of the registry and file system but they say it is bypassed easily.

“who” said “what” can be bypassed easily?

in this situation people could think, its a “(erased after use) sandbox”, but instead the changes will stay, they are just changes in a restricted amount. it could lead people to execute “bad programs” , because it seems to be secure virtual sandboxed. i even would not do it with sandboxie, but there i would know, that my “test” had never been happen, after i closed sandboxie.
i dont really get the benefit of this comodo sandbox. if you have a “bad program” and let it run, then you get unerased effects.
what could be a scenario which would be an example for the use of this version of a box, when you have defense+ and dont want to have presents of executed bad programs?

if something stays, it wasnt in a virtual surrounding…

a sandbox is used WHEN you dont trust a program, or when you want an easy way to UNDO changes. but if you tell comodo to treat a program as untrusted, then the definition tells you “many things will not work”. in this moment i CANT try untrusted programs, because they will not work AND will leave presents.
thats not usefull, and in comparing with sandboxie, the word sandbox is not the same in this case.