Sean,
Without visuals, this may get dicey.
I feel you may be blurring a few lines between strategic/penal hazards, and strategic/penal holes. I've sketched two examples that I will post later when I can get my scanner hooked up that demonstrate how two strategic holes of similar makeup can have varying levels of strategic dimension based on the placement and orientation of hazards.
In one example, the hazards are arranged such that the hole is preferrably played to one side off the tee, however, there is hazard that much be negotiated regardless of angle off the tee. The preferred angle is preferred due to the location of another hazard, with the shape and slope of the green not influencing position from the fairway.
In this case, the shape/slope of the green, and the placement of the fairway hazard are penal, since they do not change based on play. The greenside hazard is strategic, since its involvement changes based on angle and since it influences play.
This type of hole is a very shallow dimension of strategic thinking, but strategic nonetheless.
The second example features the same things, however, they are arranged such that a certain angle off the tee will provide a clear tee shot, however, that easier tee shot will result in the greenside hazard being in play. Additionally, the green is angled such that the preferred approach is as near as possible to both the greenside and fairway hazard, making the golfer challenge both to get an ideal line in.
This second hole has much more strategic depth, and the hazards are positioned such that the golfer can choose whether or not they are penal or not affecting play. For the optimum score, the golfer must rely on skill in challenging the hazard, or luck.