Thank you for your educated comment. I fly a Citation Mustang, am single pilot rated and am an IRI and CRI.
An LNAV/VNAV approach using SBAS for GP (not Baro VNAV) will provide you a correct GP regardless of (wrong) altimeter setting.
I assume an A320 today is using SBAS for the GP. If not, you might have corrected me in a less offensive way.
Most modern business jets do use SBAS for GP and for an LPV you don‘t even have a choice.
Baro VNAV is only a back-up for those aircraft and not available at all in some business jets. I consider Baro VNAV to be outdated and much less safe. I assumed that an A320 nowadays is capable of LPV (and, thus, RNP SBAS VNAV).
So for me, if they briefed and flew an LNAV/VNAV (using the SBAS VNAV GP), they would not have arrived at ground level 1 NM before the threshold - unless old avionics using Baro VNAV.
If they flew an LNAV, they should have applied LNAV minima (+ 130 ft here).
Different terminologies across continents and manufacturers...
I flew LPV approaches in the US 13 years ago. In Europe I have yet to fly an LPV approach.
In the lingo I am used to, an LNAV/VNAV minima is based on baro-VNAV. An LPV minima is based on the GPS receiver being SBAS enabled and your glide path is GPS derived. Not sure if there is a single A320 out there that can do that.... I think that's where you were shot down!