I coordinate the locations of handle center, bow center(static balance point), and string hand fulcrum with one another. Asymmetrical bows with a slightly longer top limb generally have the bow center better aligned with the string hand fulcrum. This allows the bow to balance dynamically sooner in the draw, and better, and more easily, throughout the entire draw... i.e. it's easier to contend with during construction and draws better when its done... since there's virtually no shifting fulcrum to contend with under the bow hand, like there is in symmetrical bows where the string is drawn farther from center.
But they can be made either way, and with either of those designs, it's irresponsible to say too simply, 'x-limb should be stronger'. ...without knowing or asking, how is that strength judged? By how it looks at brace? Tiller measurements at brace are false profits. They can't reliably deliver the goods... the goods being... each and every bow, an equally, predictably, well-balanced, drawn bow. Two bows of the same design, dynamically balanced to the same archer to the same degree, may end up with quite different tiller measurements due to natural external or internal irregularities.
So limbs should be balanced in strength relative to the archer's holds as the bow is drawn, so that the arrow comes straight back... not with its nock end pulled toward a relatively stronger acting limb. Then how it looks, or measures at brace, is a result... an afterthought. At that point, it's practically irrelevant so I no longer take those measurements.
Balanced is, only, as balanced does.
