This was a known, discussed, existing issue long before this class was published. I think some tables kinda hand-waive components in general and others don't. I think a pretty meaningful portion of tables do follow the rules as written on this kind of topic pretty closely. Sword of Spirit points out a known really annoying issue related to this: you cannot voluntarily use a focus even if the spell doesn't call for one or a material component because if you could you could get around a different really annoying issue that Crawford has previously commented on regarding a spellcasters ability to have their hands full.
While I agree it appears intended in the way you're interpreting it, I don't actually know it was intended that way. They have not commented on it. And they don't always correct it or mean it the way we think: for example the Grappler feat was never intended the way we all took it for a year or more, even though much of the feat had no meaning because it turned out to be about a rule that never made it into the game.
The only alternative way it could work is that Spirit Bards get a bunch of useless detritus they can use as a Spellcasting Focus...
And since none of their Healing Spells have a Material Component, they're not allowed to gain the extra 1d6 healing their subclass specifically gets as a class feature on Healing Spells they use with their focus.
There's no reasonable person who could ever come out with that as the designer's intention for creating the extra 1d6 healing function. Which is -why- the errata is unneeded. The intention is crystal clear.
I am guessing you don't watch many of the videos out there by people about 5e rules? They're very popular.
I watch videos, I read forums, I've also got a Tumblr blog where I get to watch people be pedantic about rules as written, plus Tiktok's got it's own subsection of "Things in the PHB that don't make sense" Them being "Popular" doesn't mean they're "Important" or "Right". It just means people want to watch people talk about D&D so they watch a video about D&D. Particularly videos with Rules-Advice and Questions. It also doesn't mean the viewers unilaterally agree with the contents of the video.
All of it is incredibly narrow, focused, and specific interpretations of the words on the page to create a conflict where there really shouldn't be one by people who think semantics is a great pastime.
And, y'know? Cool for them. If that's how you wanna spend your time it works just great!
But.
Living that life of extreme semantic interpretation can lead a person to isolate themself from common vernacular and colloquial understanding. And lead them to see confusion where none, or practically none, exists. Hence threads like this where half a dozen people are SO CONFUSED or think it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE while everyone else is like "No, it clearly makes sense. You're trying to interpret it in a way to explicitly not make sense"
I guess, in the end, that is who errata is really -for-. 'Cause the rest of us don't -need- someone to come down from on high and correct an apparent foible in the text.