I think it's an error to conflate the history of commits to being the "history" of the repository, simply because you're putting an assumed expectation that each commit represents a progression from the previous

to illustrate: I could create 10 different small commits from a list of unstaged changes that follow a pattern of progression, I could create 3 commits that group properties (e.g. "added interface and implementation -> lint -> add tests"), I could do all of this in a single commit, but none of those represent the reality that none of these commits werent done as the work was done and that the commits were arranged after the fact to conform to a personal standard that has nothing to do with timeline objectivity. it's not a history of anything other than of how the committer decided to layer their changes.