I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that.
I tend to use my cameras, originally film, now digital and often just a phone, as if they were Polaroids. Whatever I want to do I do in the camera but do little if any post processing. My bias is that post processing can be used to hide or mask lack of skills. Someone who can create a wonderful image without any editing is IMO a more skilled photographer than one that can get a great image from lower quality inputs. I aspire to create good images without need for any post processing but have miles to go to get to even serious amateur levels of skill in that arena. Most of the post processing I do is to scale or change resolution to fit certain output media. The front image of our farm web site of the ewes and lambs in pasture was taken in 2012 with a Canon Powershot and is totally un-retouched. It was cropped to fit the format for the front page but that is it. That is what I aspire too, I only rarely get there.
For historical scanning the only processing is done at scan time to try to capture as much of the original information as possible in the digital copy. In fact there is specific guidance for archivists NOT to do any significant editing that changes the image. In the past post processing has been used o edit out historical figures (see Russia for prime examples) and cropping to eliminate critical details that change the meaning of the picture. So I aspire to preserve the historical images as they are in all their glory without editing.
That's also why I am far less concerned about LRs nondestructive editing. I so rarely use it that I can get buy with a very small feature set in that area. The benefit for me of LR is the cataloging features.