There was only used by one person who gave no context on why he used that format, so it's probably no coincidence in such an example that to me the extra structure seemed to add only opacity and no real value.
I can absolutely imagine that being different in a company that used this convention widely and built tooling around it. Doubly so when a lot of the staff is junior enough that it's helpful guidance for structuring thoughts around what the commit does.
Though, I'm not sure it's a helpful restriction for commits that clarify, refactor, or clean up code. One can certainly reference an issue tracker number as the {feature/bug} element that gives the necessary context, but the strictness spreads the information around more widely than is natural.
If someone was adopting that convention as a workaround for helping team members learn how to communicate, they're probably going to find that it's a very incomplete workaround.
When merging you can pretty easily see what ticket each commit was for. Seems superfluous to put the same information in every commit messages.
By contrast, referencing the ticket number (but not necessarily ticket title) is common practice in the PR message, and seems much more helpful.
This also follows what I've seen at a few companies since then. Would you say that's a general rule?