What drives the evolution of these weapons?
Consider the fauchard, for example. Around 1300, you have your basic convex blade, while by 1400 a useful hook had been added. But is a c. 1600 fauchard that much more deadly/higher-tech/better than a 1400 fauchard? Or the 1800 halberd compared to the 1500 halberd? Etc.
Some of it is clearly fashion, and cultural preferences - for instance, the English always preferred bills over halberds. But a lot of it has to do with the changing nature of battle during the period and the polearm’s role in it.
Consider - who is using the weapon? Untrained, lightly armored infantry? Trained infantry in mass-produced breastplates and helmets? Dismounted knights?
And who are they using it against? Light infantry? Heavy infantry? Men with pikes, men with polearms or men with shields? Mounted heavily armored cavalry?
And what’s its role in the battlefield? Is it used on the front line of battle? Is it intended to support the pikemen? Support the archers? Support the arquebusiers and musketeers? Used by an elite corps of guards? Used in open fields? Used in urban and castle warfare?
No weapon is the best at everything, so the design of these weapons was constantly tweaked to best fit whatever role people thought they’d be used for. Over 300 years, that would lead to a lot of variations.
Among other things you’ll note a general trend towards longer and thinner blades. That’s probably a result of improved metallurgy so that less material is still adequately strong.
The especially pointy ones are optimized for poking through armor of whatever material. If we see those points getting finer over time that’s a sign of both better metal / metalworking enabling finer points, and also better armor needing to be defeated by increasing the impact pressure per unit area.
etc.