Regarding logical vs physical symbols, I came to learn over the years that there can be more than one schematic of the same design. There’s the functional schematic that explains the design itself, using op-amp symbols in this example. This schematic is typically used by engineers.
Then one could also prepare a schematic focusing on the physical layout of the printed circuit assembly itself. This type of schematic would be used primarily by service technicians (back when electronics were more serviceable), and would have typical voltages, waveforms, etc. This is where you’d most often use physical symbols like the dual op amp in this example. This type of schematic wouldn’t be prepare unless the product warranted it, which is infrequent in my experience.
A couple of other things about kinds of schematics that I’ve picked up...
A single assembly might have multiple schematics, not just the functional and physical types. For example, one huge test assembly that item I built years ago involved both electronics and plumbing (compressed nitrogen). In that case, we ended up with an electrical and a piping schematic (which threw a wrench in our company’s drawing numbering system).
Last point, which I think may be controversial, is that was taught that the schematic describes the circuit, and the PCB layout describes the physical implementation. This means that if you have two physical versions of an assembly, let’s say a thorough-hole version for lab testing and a surface mount version for production, they would have the same schematics. The different implementations are handled by the BOM / footprint mapping table. This sounds good in theory but often falls apart in practice, so I can’t really disagree with people who insist on a schematic than locks you into a particular physical implementation.