Having used darcs for a while and still being a fan of it despite having followed everyone to git, the data storage is not irrelevant and does affect the number of conflicts to resolve and the information to resolve it.

It wasn't just "auto-merging" that is darcs' superpower, it's in how many things that today in git would need to be handled in merges that darcs wouldn't even consider a merge, because its data structure doesn't.

Darcs is much better than git at cherry picking, for instance, where you take just one patch (commit) from the middle of another branch. Darcs could do that without "history rewriting" in that the patch (commit) would stay the same even though its "place in line" was drastically moved. That patch's ID would stay the same, any signatures it might have would stay the same, etc, just its order in "commit log" would be different. If you later pulled the rest of that branch, that also wouldn't be a "merge" as darcs would already understand the relative order of those patches and "just" reorder them (if necessary), again without changing any of the patch contents (ID, signatures, etc).

Darcs also has a few higher level patch concepts than just "line-by-line diffs", such as one that tracks variable renames. If you changed files in another branch making use of an older name of a variable and eventually merge it into a branch with the variable rename, the combination of the two patches (commits) would use the new name consistently, without a manual merge of the conflicting lines changed between the two, because darcs understands the higher level intent a little better there (sort of), and encodes it in its data structures as a different thing.

Darcs absolutely won't (and knows that it can't) save you from conflicts and manual merge resolution, there are still plenty of opportunities for those in any normal, healthy codebase, but it gives you tools to focus on the ones that matter most. Also yes, a merge tool can't always verify that the final output is correct or builds (the high level rename tool, for instance, is still basically a find-and-replace and can be over-correct false positives and and miss false negatives). But it's still quite relevant to merges the types of merges you need to resolve in the first place, and how often they occur, and what qualifies as a merge operation in the first place.

Though maybe you also are trying to argue the semantics of what constitutes a "merge", "conflicts", and an "integration"? Darcs won't save you from "continuous integration" tools either, but it will work to save your continuous integration tools from certain types of history rewriting.

"At the end of the day" the state-of-the-art of VCS on-disk representation and integration models and merge algorithms isn't a solved problem and there are lots of data structures and higher level constructs that tools like git haven't applied yet and/or that have yet to be invented. Innovation is still possible. Darcs does some cool things. Pijul does some cool things. git was somewhat intentionally designed to be the "dumb" in comparison to darcs' "smart", it is even encoded in the self-deprecating name (from Britishisms such as "you stupid git"). It's nice to remind ourselves that while git is a welcome status quo (it is better than a lot of things it replaced like CVS and SVN), it is not the final form of VCS nor some some sort of ur-VCS which all future others will derive and resembles all its predecessors (Darcs predates git and was an influence in several ways, though most of those ways are convenience flags that are easy to miss like `git add -p` or tools that do similar jobs in an underwhelming fashion by comparison like `git cherry-pick`).