What is the difference between consenting to the husband's financial inability (i'sar) and consenting to his impotence (innah)?

Primary text

If the wife consents to the husband's financial inability and later chooses annulment, she retains that right. Similarly, if she consents to staying with a husband who has taken an oath of non-cohabitation (iylā') and later demands annulment based on impotence, she retains that right. The distinction is that financial obligation is renewed daily; thus, consenting to forgo future support does not waive the right, as it was waived before it became due, unlike the defect of impotence. Furthermore, financial inability may be followed by affluence, and the one who took the oath may expiate it, but consenting to impotence is consenting to a congenital, typically unchangeable state of incapacity.