Recently, some people have been using "tags, clustering, and fund flows" to draw conclusions about addresses.

Honestly, I find it quite confusing: these tools can be useful, but don’t take them too seriously.
Labeling an address as "smart money/institutional/whale" is really just based on behavior, not that the person is actually smart, nor does it mean the next transaction will be correct;
clustering is the same, often it’s just one person turning over assets, running the same script, or exchanges/ custody services grouping many people together, making it look like a big fish, but it’s actually retail investors’ consolidated reports.

My current basic rule: first, see if the address shows a "stable repetitive" pattern (frequency of entry and exit, slippage, whether it’s chasing highs and selling lows),
then combine that with the reaction to large orders on the order book; if it doesn’t match, treat it as noise.
Especially recently, hardware wallets are out of stock, phishing links are everywhere, and on-chain fund flows are mixed with a bunch of "transferred away" incident orders,
which look like funds migrating… but actually, people have fallen into a trap.
Labels can be used as reference, but don’t treat them as faith; risk control still depends on yourself.