Clarify responsibilities and performance of `format_cropr()` and `generic_formatting()`

[sbuis]

Description

The formatting pipeline currently relies on two distinct functions:

• generic_formatting(), used exclusively in generic_plotting().
• format_cropr(), used in both generic_plotting() and generic_stats().

There is no functional overlap between these two formatting functions. However, their articulation within the workflow — especially in generic_plotting() where they are both involved — would benefit from clearer documentation and architectural explanation.

Points to clarify

• What is the precise conceptual role of format_cropr() compared to generic_formatting()?

  • Why is generic_formatting() restricted to generic_plotting()?
  • Why is format_cropr() shared between generic_plotting() and generic_stats()?

• Is the current separation driven by data structure constraints, API design, or historical evolution?

Even if the separation is justified, this design choice should be made explicit in documentation or internal comments to improve readability and maintainability.

Performance considerations

Since format_cropr() is used in both plotting and statistics workflows, and generic_formatting() is part of the plotting pipeline, their computational cost may directly impact performance — particularly for large datasets.

It would therefore be useful to:

• Benchmark the execution time of both functions.
• Identify possible bottlenecks.
• Optimize critical sections where feasible.

Proposed actions

1. Explicitly document the responsibilities and scope of each function.
2. Clarify the architectural rationale behind their current distribution across generic_plotting() and generic_stats().
3. Profile and benchmark both functions.
4. Optimize implementation where performance gains are possible.