I do not have any inside information on the device, so I am not claiming your numbers would be wrong. They may well be right. However, I would not trust eyewitnesses in this case...
The big, ugly elephant in the virtual room is called vergence-accommodation conflict (or something similar depending on the context). Our brain has multiple ways of determining the distance of an object. Some of them only depend on the content of the image, e.g., we can determine or estimate depth from a 2D display by understanding what is in the image. For example, mountains are usually far and large, mice are small, an object occluded by another one is farther away, hazy objects are likely to be far away, etc.
However, there are two (or three, where two are closely interrelated) physical methods which we can use at close or intermediate distances.
First, we have stereopsis; each eye sees a slightly different image as the viewing angle is different. Stereopsis is good for up to a couple of hundred meters depending on a large number of variables. The accuracy, naturally, is better at closer range.
Second, or possibly another branch of stereopsis, is convergence. If we look at objects close to our eyes, we tend to squint our eyes inwards so that whatever we are focusing on is at the same position on both retinae. This mechanism blends seamlessly with the first mechanism, so telling them apart is difficult. What is important is that VR glasses (and 3D picture viewers from the 19th century) use this principle to create an illusion of depth.
Third, we use the eye accommodation information or, in photography terms, read the distance from the focusing ring of our lens. If we need to squeeze the lens, we know the object is relatively near. This mechanism functions up to a couple of meters, beyond that eyes should be relaxed. The full story behind accommodation information seems to be quite complex, but I'll save this audience from the interesting properties of the non-ideal PSF (Point Spread Function) of the human eye.
A major challenge with VR glasses is the mismatch between accommodation (focus) and convergence (stereo vision). Regardless of the virtual distance of an object, we use the same focus distance for our eyes when we focus on a virtual screen. This results in erroneous distance and size perception depending on the relative distance of an object and the virtual screen. Also, when our brain detects conflicting information, it often guesses it is because we have eaten something rotten and should immediately dispose of whatever is in the digestive tract. (This is not the only factor behind VR sickness. Motion sickness comes into play due to visual latency between movement and image, and due to mismatch between the balance information from the inner ear and the image from our eyes.)
Different VR glass vendors have chosen different focus distances. IIRC, Oculus DK1 was at infinity, and DK2 at around 1.5 m. Microsoft Hololens is at 2.0 m.
But back to the reliability of eyewitnesses in this case. Due to reasons loosely associated with the vergence-accomodation conflict, people usually underestimate the distance of a virtual screen. A screen at infinity may be reported to be floating at 2 m. So, if users say the screen looks as if it was at 1.5 m, its optical distance is probably between 2 m and infinity.
There is a lot of research on the topic, as reducing vergence-accommodation conflict is literally a billion-dollar question, but the distance setting seems to be a bit of a black art. Purely from the eye strain point of view, it would be best to place the screen at infinity. However, that maximizes the vergence-accommodation conflict for objects close to the viewer. It also ensures that mild myopes need glasses—or would need glasses—and thus a slightly closer focus distance makes more people happier with the expense of eye strain for emmetropes (people with "normal" vision; quotes due to the fact that they are in minority).
A long story, but we do not really know before a) Apple releases some specifications or b) someone measures the distance. Not that it would be very important, though.
