Member-wise checks give incorrect errors for type assertions

Playground Link

// No error. ✅
let okay = { id: 123, blah: "extra" } as { id: number };

// Errors. ❌
let waat = [{ id: 123, blah: "extra" }] as { id: number }[];
//                     ~~~~
// Conversion of type '{ id: number; blah: string; }[]' to type '{ id: number; }[]' may be a mistake because neither type sufficiently overlaps with the other. If this was intentional, convert the expression to 'unknown' first.
//   Type '{ id: number; blah: string; }' is not comparable to type '{ id: number; }'.
//     Object literal may only specify known properties, and 'blah' does not exist in type '{ id: number; }'.

Expected: Both of these type assertions should consistently apply the appropriate relationship check, and both should be free of errors.

Actual: The first assertion is free of errors, while the second has an excess property error.

Similar example I found over at https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/55152/files#r1275497478:

let okay = { foo: "" } as { id: 123 };
//         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// Conversion of type '{ foo: string; }' to type '{ id: 123; }' may be a mistake because neither type sufficiently overlaps with the other. If this was intentional, convert the expression to 'unknown' first.
//   Property 'id' is missing in type '{ foo: string; }' but required in type '{ id: 123; }'.

let waat = [{ foo: "" }] as { id: 123 }[];
//            ~~~
// Conversion of type '{ foo: string; }[]' to type '{ id: 123; }[]' may be a mistake because neither type sufficiently overlaps with the other. If this was intentional, convert the expression to 'unknown' first.
//   Type '{ foo: string; }' is not comparable to type '{ id: 123; }'.
//     Object literal may only specify known properties, and 'foo' does not exist in type '{ id: 123; }'.

Beginne mit der verknüpften TypeScript Playground-Reproduktion und vergleiche die beiden Typassertionen, einschließlich des ähnlichen Beispiels aus PR #55152. Verfolge die für Array-Assertionen verwendete Prüfung der Beziehung zwischen den Membern und füge einen Regressionstest für die gemeldeten Fälle hinzu; erledigt ist die Aufgabe, wenn beide Assertionen den falschen Excess-Property-Fehler konsistent vermeiden.