'lub' and 'both' on strictness - what does it mean for products to have different arity?

[Ömer Sinan Ağacan]

I was looking at implementations of LUB and AND on demand signatures and I
found this interesting case:

    lubStr (SProd s1) (SProd s2)
        | length s1 == length s2   = mkSProd (zipWith lubArgStr s1 s2)
        | otherwise                = HeadStr

The "otherwise" case is interesting, I'd expect that to be an error. I'm trying
to come up with an example, let's say I have a case expression:

    case x of
       P1 -> RHS1
       P2 -> RHS2

and y is used in RHS1 with S(SS) and in RHS2 with S(SSS). This seems to me like
a type error leaked into the demand analysis.

Same thing applies to `bothDmd` too. Funnily, it has this extra comment on this
same code:

    bothStr (SProd s1) (SProd s2)
        | length s1 == length s2   = mkSProd (zipWith bothArgStr s1 s2)
        | otherwise                = HyperStr  -- Weird

Does "Weird" here means "type error and/or bug" ?

Should I try replacing these cases with panics and try to validate?