Many systems say they are protected because backup files exist. That is a hopeful statement, not a verified one. A backup earns its value only when the team has checked that the file opens, the schema is intact, the encryption works as expected, and the restored data behaves like the live system it is supposed to replace.
Recovery planning is therefore a practical discipline rather than a ceremonial one. The schedule matters, but so does retention, off-site storage, and the distance between the production database and the copy that is meant to save it. Backups should be frequent enough to limit loss, but not so ad hoc that nobody can explain which copy is the latest reliable one.
It also helps to distinguish between backup and archive. A backup is a working recovery tool, while an archive is a historical record. Mixing those ideas can create confusion when a team needs to restore quickly and discovers that the file they kept was designed for preservation rather than recovery.
The most mature backup habit is regular restoration testing. If a restore can be performed under pressure, by a person who did not build the original system, then the backup process has become real. Until that point, the system is only assuming it will survive a failure that has never been rehearsed.