Question about a commit-history relationship I found while studying Helix

[SushantVerma7969]

Hi,

I've been experimenting with using Git history to understand architectural evolution in mature repositories.

One relationship in Helix surprised me enough that I'd like to sanity-check it with people who know the codebase.

Even after removing large formatting commits, dependency updates, and repository-wide refactors, two editing-related components continued to evolve together far more often than I expected.

Before assuming this represents a genuine architectural dependency, I wanted to ask:

Does commit history actually reflect an intentional relationship here?

Or would someone familiar with Helix consider this a misleading conclusion drawn from historical development?

I'm much more interested in understanding where this type of analysis fails than proving it's correct.

Thanks!