It shows poor judgement. the install is a hacked up mess.
How so? If you have an existing main panel which is junk (BR I guess? FPE?), why add a new BR sub-panel and not a QO or CH? There is
zero technical/electrical reason to have them the same.
Since we are sharing
opinions, I'll add in I think the Square D QO is the best combination made. From lab tests of the actual quick trip times of the QO and Homeline breakers, to my in-service experience with the three (QO, Homeline and CH), the QO's have all been flawless. I have one that I believe is a good 35-40 years old, which has all the original breakers for at least the 27 years I can account for it (except for a couple additions). I would bet my safety on either of the Square D breakers (QO or Homeline, same guts) before any other, and that's the most important part of a load center. The visi-trip indicators are common sense.
Meanwhile, my CH has buzzing breakers that didn't make it 10 years, including 2 out of a 20-space panel which don't trip properly... I thought it was a power or load issue so I borrowed an expensive Fluke graphing meter and the power quality is fine. Makes sense since none of the QO panels do anything. Even the Push-matic I replaced (QO 6/12) was fine
All this **** about copper busbars and panel quality of the QO/Homeline, I say: blah. Aluminum is used for distribution because it's cheaper, you need a bit more but it's very reliable... that's why your service entrance cables are typically Al. The busses are tin-plated and I bet subject to less corrosion than the bare copper bus on my CH, not that I've seen either develop issues due to it.
There's a reason that small commercial/industrial installations still spec the QO 40some years later.