cambridge interview

my interview went well (I think so but also don't know) because I explained both sides of the argument well, gave evidence, facts and statistics, land economy terms, evaluated judgements and took a multifaceted approach. Sometimes, the interviewer said that is good xyz... but what about approaching It from this aspect and can you tell me how this other facet of the topic would be affected? E.g. not the economic finance side but how about the quantity/quality element of the problem. Is this normal as they want to see how I think about every part of the problem and guide me to challenge my thinking in a broader way, or is it because I was wrong. After the prompts, I always redirected successfully in their direction and give similar strong answers in all ways.
After each question, the interviewer said 'well done that is everything I was thinking of' or 'great' (or something along those lines) but for a couple of questions she was also like 'all correct but I would also consider ..... (e.g. subsidies)'. This was infrequnt so hopefully my depth and breadth of knowledge was fine otherwise. Is this normal or a sign of weakness? Obviously I don't have the same quantity of knowledge as a professor so surely they would be understanding. I always gave multiple points, explained them and thought about several stakeholders in each of my answers with depth. I was prompt in answering, no major hesitation but took reflective pauses before each answer and seemed passionate (I hope anyways).
I accidentally slipped up and said a wrong word by accident at the very beginning but then corrected myself when she asked and partially misinterpreted a question, but when she clarified what it meant I redirected my answer and gave it successfully, fluidly and correctly when I got the context she meant. Would I be penalised for this? She didn't clarify and also probably knew I was nervous so hopefully it isn't a big flaw.
Overall, I did try my best and I am only focussing on mainly the negative parts now, but I truly did have depth of knowledge and explored several approaches and evaluated how things could be true/false/when my theories wouldn't always apply and tried to define terms where appropriate. I used topical case studies and real life incidents as well as theories (but gave a little slip in one of the theories I mentioned and the knowledge entailed in it by forgetting a nuance about why it may not be applicable in that situation but I dont think she noticed because she didn't say anything. It was an advanced behavioural economics concept so I think it is impressive because I defined most of the conditions well otherwise. Even if it was a little silly for me to consider being applied in that context, most of my definition of it was good and it is nice that I knew it in the first place. )
Am I fine? Can someone give me a true breakdown of how I did and whether I am in a strong position to get a place or not? I hope I am. Any honest judgement would be appreciated.

I also had an interview for girton last week, I would say it went well. They were saying”that’s great” and “I agree” so i suppose what i was saying was of some substance

did you make many mistakes or misunderstand anything? they definitely gave me the positive feedback prompts too

I think i might have misinterpreted a graph but i got there in the end