What's interesting is that (as described in the present top comment on this article, about "CALL BRIAN"), if the abstraction of "type safety" is leaky (as it
is, e.g. in the presence of memory or hardware errors), this kind of paranoia can actually have real-world benefits even though you can prove the impossibility of the code running using static analysis.
Sometimes the important artifact is the executable in the larger context of the deployed system, rather than the code you generate it from.