if single_not_embedded_field:
        field_info = first_field.field_info
        assert isinstance(field_info, params.Param), (
            "Params must be subclasses of Param"
        )
        loc: tuple[str, ...] = (field_info.in_.value,)
        v_, errors_ = _validate_value_with_model_field(
            field=first_field, value=params_to_process, values=values, loc=loc

Und Tools werden auch glücklich sein, weil sowohl `RedirectResponse` als auch `JSONResponse` Unterklassen von `Response` sind, die Typannotation ist daher korrekt.

### Eine Unterklasse von Response annotieren { #annotate-a-response-subclass }

Sie können auch eine Unterklasse von `Response` in der Typannotation verwenden.

{* ../../docs_src/response_model/tutorial003_03_py39.py hl[8:9] *}

            # as is just because it's an instance of a subclass of a more limited class
            # e.g. UserInDB (containing hashed_password) could be a subclass of User
            # that doesn't have the hashed_password. But because it's a subclass, it
            # would pass the validation and be returned as is.

avoids/fixes a potential security issue: as the returned object is passed directly to Pydantic, if the returned object was a subclass of the `response_model` (e.g. you return a `UserInDB` that inherits from `User` but contains extra fields, like `hashed_password`, and `User` is used in the `response_model`), it would still pass the validation (because `UserInDB` is a subclass of `User`) and the object would be returned as-is, including the `hashed_password`. To fix this, the declared `response_model`...