Recently, when looking at on-chain "coincidental transfers," I actually don't believe in coincidences.

Many transactions that seem like A suddenly sending to B are actually just: the same batch of funds moving in segments, passing through one or two intermediaries, then deliberately staggered in time, finally ending up at an address you think is unrelated.
To put it simply, don't rush to label them as "related"—first clarify the path: who is sending, who is receiving, where is splitting, where is aggregating, and check whether the fees and time gaps are leaving "traces."
Nowadays, many tools and tagging systems are criticized for being outdated and easily influenced by narratives, which I think is normal; tags are just results, not proof.
I personally value reproducible paths and motives more, otherwise decentralized narratives get polluted by a bunch of "it looks like" scenarios.