It also provides a basis for substantive criticism. E.g., there are many claims advanced without any evidence or testing of those claims.
There are full-size structure tests under wildfire / WUI (wildland/urban interface) conditions. These are nontrivial and expensive. Findings are often nonintuitive.
I'd found some good videos previously, those aren't turning up for me presently, though this is a detailed discussion of the phenomenon:
I'd be quite wary of either coincidental anecdotes (as Reddit discussion notes, there are several other surviving structures, apparently not Passivhaus designs), or speculative discussion of how a design might perform under actual wildfire conditions.
One example from the current fires is the Pasadena Jewish Center, which at first blush looks fairly robust: stucco or concrete construction, clay tile roof. But that structure burnt completely in the Eaton fire.
I've found a few images of the structure previously, though those don't show much detail. The vulnerability of that specific building was surprising to me.