Is it a good idea to split an auditable table into two tables based on the update frequency?
I think your assessment is heading in the right direction. You do appear to be capturing too much information. Based  on your description, I think you are describing a consumption event and not product history.
My recommendation is to look at splitting out the consumption attributes from the PRODUCT_HISTORY table into a new table.  Without knowing the omitted columns, I am unable to provide a recommendation. Here are some thoughts:

if the &quot;name&quot; column is the product's name, that doesn't change with a consumption event and should remain in product history.

The consumption_limit might need to be in the product history and consumption event tables. You may need to know what the limit was when the consumption occurred and the limit may change over time, thus that fact should be recorded in the product history table.

A relationship between the consumption event and the operations table might be needed


Does a row in the operations table describe a collection of individual operations (and perhaps there is an operation table) or is it a singular operation?  That is an important detail on figuring out the relationship with consumption events. If it is singular, I recommend you rename the table.