Suppose we have an object thrown up from earth, then, it's energy is given by,
$$ E = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 - V(r)$$
Where V(r) is a potential dependent on distance from centre of earth. By conservation of energy, and some nice assumptions, E is a constant.
Now, suppose we could write velocity as a function of 'r', then, if we took the limit as r goes to infinity, then
$$ \lim_{r \to \infty } E = \lim_{ r \to \infty} [ \frac{1}{2} mv^2 - V(r)]$$
So, at the final state if we assume that only 'enough' energy is given that the body escapes, then,
$$ \lim_{r \to \infty} E = 0 $$
But since, $E$ is a constant,
$$ E=0$$
So, this means that the path followed by a particle which has just enough velocity to escape is given by,
$$ \frac{1}{2} mv^2 = V(r)$$
or,
$$ v = \sqrt{ 2 \frac{V(r)}{m} }$$
Now, this would mean that suppose took a certain distance from centre of earth, if the particle was on trajectory to escape, then the velocity at each point from the earth is directly related to potential.
So by this logic, we can take the velocity of a give particle at any point in it's trajectory and predict whether it could escape or not, as in , if it's velocity obeyed the inequality as shown below,
$$ v_{particle} (r) \geq \sqrt{ 2 \frac{V(r)}{m} }$$
Now, how do I intuitively interpret the last inequality, as in it seems very strange to me that you can just take velocity at a point compared it to potential and see if the particle would finally escape or not? What is "intuition" behind why this would work other than the mathematical one?