I can't completely justify the intuition here, but this seems like an artificial distinction forced by a snapshot model of a codebase. It's literally about the same patches, but arranged differently to give clarity to the history of the project.
So it seems obvious on that level that a system where patches are the fundamental stratum has an advantage there, although I confess that I have yet to use Pijul for a substantial project, so I can't describe in detail how it might make this better. I'm just going off things like how a cherry-pick in Pijul applies the actual change from one branch to the other, rather than duplicating it over.
I get frustrated a bit when I think about the gap between the kind of difference a leap forward in revision control could make for our profession, and the amount of resources the Pijul project has to work with. So I'm just putting this out there: MSFT bought GitHub for about 9 billion dollars in 2024 money. Anything which displaces it would be worth more than that. That's a lot of leverage for anyone forward-looking enough to apply it.