Counterintuitive handling of Composites in the timeline

Hello, I wanted to discuss what I think is a very counterintuitive thing bothering me in the timeline.
It’s regarding the way Composite layers are displayed and handled there - currently any Composite layer is displayed and treated AS A CHILD of the last layer connected to its inputs (Node connected to the last port to the right of the Composite in the Node View). This makes no sense to me - there is no special relation between the last connected layer and the Composite. The implications of this false relationship are that when the last connected layer is collapsed in the timeline switching its visibility on/off also controls the visibility of the Composite! It happened to me many times that a number of my layers became invisible for no apparent reason until I remembered what’s hidden under the one unimportant layer - the visibility switch to the whole group!

I think Composites should be treated in the Timeline almost as another PARENT of their connected layers:

1 - in that it should be impossible to collapse them under one (whichever) of the connected layers, so they are always visible. (And if we don’t want to see them in the Timeline - to save space - there could be a switch to do hide Composites globally somewhere),

2 - it would also make sense the connected layers were indented (like if they were CHILDREN of the Composite) and the faint connecting lines were displayed to the Composite - the same way they are displayed for any children of a parent layer. So when a set of layers would have both a parent above and a Composite below, connections to both would be displayed but only the parent could be used to collapse the layers - the Composite could not be collapsed, so one could not accidentaly hide it and forget about it - it’s an important layer!

Obviously point 1 is more important.

So I just wanted to ask you is there some important reason for the current way the Composites are handled in the timeline or does what I describe make more sense?