A theme that argues essentially for more logic in JavaScript (and hence less in Elm) should probably prompt an examination of other mixed language environments and projects.
From what I’ve seen over the years, the boundary that comes with multiple languages always comes with expenses around plumbing and cross-language debugging. This puts pressure on the minority language to be really good at what it does in order to justify the cost relative to the majority language. Usually, that “really good” manifests as a desire to write more code in the minority language to the point where the balance tilts: “This is just the scripting language that we use to wire together the real features, put up the UX,…” becomes “Hey, it turns out most of what we do can be thought of wiring things up and this scripting language is great.” Having bet on a non-standard technology, people tend to want to see that bet pay off in a big way.
Narrowing the scope of what one uses Elm for may well improve interoperability with JavaScript but if it leads to projects investing more effort in hiring people to focus on JavaScript code, those people may start pointing out that JavaScript has a long history of handling the tasks from Elm’s narrowed domain. I wouldn’t make this a central part of any study of the issue but it seems like the sort of question that should get some consideration in any conclusion.
Mark