We need answer only JSON array. Need group files semantically. Need inspect names. Files: - public/css/company_customization/company-branding-form.css - public/js/company_customization/company-branding-form.js - src/Service/CompanyBrandingService.php - templates/company/components/_company_branding_form.html.twig - templates/company/my_company.html.twig - public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js Most are company branding feature. Button loading JS maybe generic utility modified for loading state perhaps used by branding form? Need decide grouping. Likely group all company branding+css/js/service/templates together, and _button_loading maybe related to loading buttons in branding form? It says metahuman-standard components; maybe shared component modified to support button loading, perhaps needed by company-branding-form.js? Need infer. Rules: Files in same group if same module/feature or producer/consumer, shared directory. Company branding form files clearly group. _button_loading.js is in different directory and generic component, but modified in same changeset maybe to support loading state in company branding form? We need determine if should group separately or include. It might be an independent utility change. Let's examine plausible relationships. Company branding form JS likely handles form submission and uses button loading? The _button_loading.js is a reusable component for loading state. Since the form CSS/JS and service are all part of company branding. The button loading could be included because form may show loading when saving. But it's in metahuman-standard/components and may be modified to enhance behavior (e.g., stop loading or disabled). There's no evidence. Need produce JSON array. Could group all 6 in one group? But "public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js" is not in same directory, but could still be semantically related if used by the form. However label must be short. Yet grouping all together may be acceptable as one feature. But there is a risk: button loading is independent and should be separate. Need decide. Let's think like code review assistant: Changed files often include frontend component utility. "company-branding-form.js" might import "_button_loading.js" to show button loading. Since both JS files modified and likely related through producer/consumer. CSS, service, templates all form. So all together seems best. But if there are no links, we can't know. The instruction says "Maximum 10 files per group"; "Files in the same group typically belong to same module/feature". All modifications probably part of implementing company branding customizations. Group them all as "company branding form feature". However, maybe "public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js" is a separate shared component change unrelated to company branding; but since the only other changed file is JS in company customization, likely button loading was used by that JS. Need output only JSON. Need ensure paths exactly as listed. Group label maybe "Company branding form". All files? Let's consider if there are two groups: one for company branding (5 files) and one for button loading (1 file). Which is safer? Let's examine naming: _button_loading.js, if modified, perhaps a utility component that adds loading spinner to buttons. It might be used across many forms, not necessarily company branding. Company branding form may use a different JS pattern. But in CSS/JS changes, there is +326/-14 in company-branding-form.js, likely new form logic. Maybe it includes loading state inline. The _button_loading.js change could be an independent improvement to support disabled state. Without more context, grouping all six can be labeled "company branding form and button loading". But "files in same group typically share directory and work together"; _button_loading.js shares not directory. But "producer/consumer relationships" could apply if JS module consumed. We can't know. Let's read file paths: - public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js. "metahuman-standard" is a design system. Company branding form may be an admin page not using metahuman-standard? Company customization is a feature in company module. Could use metahuman components. But "metahuman-standard" perhaps global. However if company form uses it, then yes. Maybe group into: 1. "Company branding form" files: css, js, service, twig templates. 2. "Button loading component" file: _button_loading.js. But then the button loading change might be unrelated to company branding. Since every file must appear exactly one group; a group may contain 1 file. That's acceptable. Is it preferable to not over-group? We need "semantically related clusters". A single generic component probably is unrelated to company branding if no direct evidence. But then why changed in same commit? Could be a dependency of company branding form. Need think of code review: If I group them all, reviewer can see all files related to feature. If I separate, reviewer might miss that button loading is used by form. But the instruction says "same module/feature"; button loading is a component, maybe not a module. Could be used by company branding form; then same feature. Hmm. Let's examine naming conventions: `public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js` is an underscore-prefixed file, likely a partial/component. Company-branding-form.js is in `public/js/company_customization/`. It might import via JS module from `metahuman-standard`. Because both JS changed, likely the form JS now uses the button loading component, and the component was updated to support e.g. reset. That is a producer/consumer relationship, so group together. Need maybe include all 6 with label "Company branding form implementation". If label too narrow includes button loading? Could be "Company branding form with button loading". But output only JSON; label can be "company branding form". We can include all files under that label, even button loading. The label isn't critical. Let's decide. I think all six in one group is reasonable. But let's verify maximum 10, okay. Need no other text. Potential issue: The instruction says "Every file must appear in exactly one group." If only one group, all files appear. Good. Let's craft JSON array. Use proper escaping? Paths contain underscores, no special. JSON array with object. Need include `"files": [...]`. Let's output: [ { "label": "Company branding form", "files": [ "public/css/company_customization/company-branding-form.css", "public/js/company_customization/company-branding-form.js", "public/js/metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js", "src/Service/CompanyBrandingService.php", "templates/company/components/_company_branding_form.html.twig", "templates/company/my_company.html.twig" ] } ] Will that satisfy? Likely. But maybe should put button loading in separate group to avoid semantic mismatch. Let's think deeper. The task: "Group changed files into semantically related clusters that should be reviewed together." If button loading is a shared component, changing it affects all consumers, so reviewing it individually may be appropriate. But if the change was made because of company branding, reviewers need context. Without actual diff, cannot know. The instruction says "Typically" not absolute. Since all files are changed in the same list, likely one feature. "Company branding form" could include a reusable component modification to support form's loading state. Let's see if there are templates: `templates/company/my_company.html.twig` likely includes the form component. `templates/company/components/_company_branding_form.html.twig` is the form. CSS/JS are for that form. Service provides data. So five are definitely one group. The `_button_loading.js` is not obviously. It might be a shared JS behavior that the company-branding-form.js uses to show a button loading indicator. If so, group with them. Could there be `company-branding-form.js` containing `import ... from '../../metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js'`? The relative path from `public/js/company_customization/` to `public/js/metahuman-standard/components/` would be `../metahuman-standard/components/_button_loading.js`. That is plausible. So yes. Need consider "CSS" and "JS" in same directory `company_customization`, service in src, templates. All coherent. The button loading file in metahuman-standard is a shared component, but since it is changed along with a JS consumer, it's a producer/consumer relationship. Grouping all together is robust. Let's answer with JSON array only.