There is no correct.
As soon as you try to find out about good usage there will be others that have very good arguments against that because their use case differs. They even might have multiple opposing use cases.
Getting a default handle on all light situtations, cameras and their behaviour and so on is a massive undertaking. And it will have to involve automagically applying settings to images based on experience, circumstances, image analyses, content detection and so on.
Phones do massive amounts of computational photography. But even your olde (D)SLR¹ has a low resolution sensor in the prisma to record the scene, compare to it’s internal database of images and set exposure and other things on the fly long before you have pressed your shutter button.
All that to create brand awareness with the ultimate goal to earn money for the stakeholders². I do not know the numbers, but I bet you that any major camera and/or image processing software company have spent more man hours on color look branding science³ alone than what went into the software packages you’d like to improve.
And then there is the core principal of any profession: never create a feature you are not willing to maintain at least for the foreseeable future. Especially if you are doing this on your own clock.
¹) the Nikon F5 from 1996 is the first camera I am aware of that had an imaging sensor to evaluate the scene for exposure. Please correct me if I have that wrong.
²) the customers that any corporation is catering to are the ones earning money from the corporation. End-consumers are crowd sourced money providers which get a tool in return for their donation. Nothing wrong with that, but it helps if one understands where the priorities are directed to.
²) it’s working the numbers until the marketing departement approves them