I don't care about your opinion, so if you don't like what I posted or you don't understand it than simply ignore it.
There are secure elements that are fully closed source, and those that are open source partialy.
This is not my opinion, but a factual information.
Claiming "factual" in this context is meaningless without presuppositions. Stating that hardware of any kind is "partially" open source is equally vacuous. Even if you specify to what extent the design, manufacturing, and firmware are accessible, reproducible, and modifiable by the public, there will probably remain elements that are inaccessible, proprietary, or unverifiable.
No hardware wallet is open source in the full sense of the term, offering complete transparency and reproducibility.
You actually need to have functional brain to understand this table, but I think even average gorilla would understand meaning of this image from my table, and what Open Source is referring to hardware wallets:
Translation:
First row - hardware wallet name, Second row - open source code.
Maybe my brain isn't functioning, but you say you're referring to source code and that this is obvious, but a few lines above you're presenting the idea of a "partially" open source hardware. Which is it?