A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
sealed interface I_A {
    }

    sealed interface I_B {
    }

    record R_A(I_A a) implements I_A {
    }

    record R_B(R_A a) implements I_A {
    }

    record R_D(R_A a, I_A b) implements I_B {
    }

    public static void main(String args[]) {

        I_B v_a = null;
        Integer v_b = switch (v_a) {
            case R_D(R_A(var a), R_B(var c)) -> 1;
            case R_D(R_A(R_A(var a)), var d) -> 2;
            case R_D(R_A(R_B(var a)), R_A(var c)) -> 3;
        };
    }

The compiler claims the above program to contain a switch that does not cover all possible input values. But if we replace case 2 with case R_D(R_A(R_A(var a)), R_A(var d)) -> 2; (which is a more specific case), it suddenly thinks it is exhaustive.

STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
Describe in the description above

EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
EXPECTED -
The original switch statement should behave the same way as the more specific switch statement, both should be exhaustive.
ACTUAL -
The switch statement with var d instead of R_A(var d) is claimed to be inexhaustive.

---------- BEGIN SOURCE ----------

class TestClass {
    sealed interface I_A {
    }

    sealed interface I_B {
    }

    record R_A(I_A a) implements I_A {
    }

    record R_B(R_A a) implements I_A {
    }

    record R_D(R_A a, I_A b) implements I_B {
    }

    public static void main(String args[]) {

        I_B v_a = null;
        Integer v_b = switch (v_a) {
            case R_D(R_A(var a), R_B(var c)) -> 1;
            case R_D(R_A(R_A(var a)), var d) -> 2; // case R_D(R_A(R_A(var a)), R_A(var d)) -> 3;
            case R_D(R_A(R_B(var a)), R_A(var c)) -> 3;
        };
    }

};

---------- END SOURCE ----------

CUSTOMER SUBMITTED WORKAROUND :
Replacing the pattern with the more specific case

FREQUENCY : always