The dynamic range is clearly there. And we're not talking about such ridiculous values that the sensor noise becomes prominent.
You can do that correction in that situation because you've looked at the image, you know what it is meant to be, and you can decide on a set of adjustments that produce something that approximates what you want, perceptually.
But without truly extensive scene knowledge, cameras can't do that automatically, and they also can't know what information that is important to the photographer that they'd be affecting if they did.
Cameras have to try to ascertain what would be middle grey in a scene and then apply a general purpose tone curve to an image, but they do not know what is in the scene.
They can't even know for sure if the photo they are being asked to take is properly exposed by any absolute definition, in fact.
[I cut out a lot of this because I don't think it's going to be easy to complete the explanation here]
Have you ever shot photographs with a colour transparency film?
Gamma is just a single element of a color space. The whole trivializing sRGB into being a 2.2 Gamma versus linear is an over simplification that ignores gamut , white point, bit depth and more.
That's my point. You're trivializing what color is because you clearly have not dealt with it at scale.
You can download an alternate color scheme from Technicolor for Canon cameras that makes the colors appear fairly reasonable.
From what color space to what color space, and what display or print type?
Now you're back to describing a average case perceptual color rather than your initial point of accuracy.