When he creates an Electrum wallet based on a hardware device like Trezor or Bitbox02, then the Electrum wallet is something like a watch-only wallet, except that it allows to sign and transfer funds with the hardware wallet device acting as signing device.
The Electrum wallet stores the Extended Public Key to derive addresses according to the derivation path in use. It should conform to BIP39 and as far as my experience goes, the hardware device communicates relevant details to Electrum. There's not much to tweak here, when you setup such a wallet.
A user needs to understand some basic HD wallet and hardware wallet device details. The hardware wallet device can be unlocked by a PIN or Password/Passphrase. For convenience and ease of entry usually a PIN is used. You're usually allowed to enter only a few tries for PIN entry before the device resets itself. I consider this safe enough as long as you use no stupid PIN (I'd recommend at least 6 digits and no trivial numbers like 123456 or similar brain-dead combos).
The HD wallet is determined by its Seed, represented in safely human readable form as Mnemonic Words, maybe an optional Mnemonic Passphrase (any unique Mnemonic Passphrase derives an unique HD wallet) and Derivation Path. With these details you can usually recover the HD wallet and every user should safely check if this works. This isn't very easy if you care about proper safety but it's no rocket science either.
You can choose to have the Electrum wallet be encrypted by the hardware wallet device. I don't see how this is a recipe for coin destruction unless a user fails to safely and redundantly store the basic HD wallet details needed for proper recovery of the HD wallet, in particular the Mnemonic Words, an optional Mnemonic Passphrase and conveniently the Derivation Path.
This is basic HD wallet 101 or should be...
The fact that the hardware wallet shows him there might be something wrong with the passphrase makes me think that it is not a standard BIP39 passphrase (which cannot be "wrong") but some encryption key that scrambles the metadata inside a wallet file. If he is trying to recover a wallet in an incorrect way using this encryption key as a BIP39 passphrase, it is no wonder that he gets a completely different set of keys and addresses.
It's not the hardware wallet device that shows the error this Twitter dude sees, it's Electrum. I have no idea what you mean by "not a standard BIP39 passphrase". How exactly Electrum derives the wallet file encryption key from the hardware wallet device is something which might need to be checked with Electrum devs or by simply inspecting the Electrum wallet code for those capable of reading and understanding the code.
I have such a Testnet Electrum wallet encrypted by my PiTrezor. The Electrum wallet file looks like any fully encrypted Electrum wallet file. The Electrum wallet encryption key was never shown or exposed to me. The PiTrezor "wallet" is BIP39 of course by default and I use a Mnemonic Passphrase for safety reasons as the PiTrezor can't protect secret wallet data due to its data storage concept on unencrypted microSD card.
When I want to open the Electrum wallet, I have to connect the PiTrezor, unlock it with the PIN and then I'm asked to enter the Mnemonic Passphrase and confirm it on the PiTrezor. Provided no input errors have been made which I could've spotted at the confirmation step the Electrum wallet gets unlocked and opened. I'd assume it's the same with a Bitbox02.
As far as I remember, I tested that I can reset the PiTrezor, recover the HD wallet with saved Mnemonic Words and Mnemonic Passphrase and the PiTrezor still be able to unlock my PiTrezor encrypted Electrum wallet. But even if that wouldn't work because some specific serial no. of the particular hardware wallet device is mangled into the Electrum wallet encryption key (which is never exposed to the user in such a setup): no problem, no coins lost as you can create a new Electrum wallet file based on your hardware wallet device and the saved HD wallet details in it. (You might loose transaction comments/labels and active LN channels are an issue, so you may loose some Sats due to LN channel recovery/closing).