If the C++ standard imposes no requirements on such a program, then that means that the program is not C++. It's quite reasonable to describe such a program as an "incorrect [C++] program."
This is a semantic quagmire, and the threads on what undefined behaviour is are interminable. But just note this time around that correctness is not the same as conformity.
Semantics matter to compiler vendors though, which is why C++ 26 now introduced erroneous behaviour as an attempt to fix UB.
What's the difference? There's no such thing as "incorrect C++, but still C++." A program is either correct/valid/conforming C++, or it's not. We can reasonably describe "not" as "incorrect," or "invalid," "nonconforming," or just "not C++."