I assume you're referring to the "Twitter Files" revelations* there? Because that showed nothing of the sort, did it?
That fact was public knowledge.
Did the twitter files reveal anything more specific about why they suppressed Trump's account?
It seems to me that merely calling them "Twitter files" is very effective at evoking and implying possibly more than what they actually contain.
Which I think is the standard definition - suggesting Twitter have made up their own is a bit snarky?
If by "suppressed" you mean "suspended for repeated violations of ToS even though they'd protected him for months by saying he was POTUS and therefore newsworthy and should be granted much more leeway than other accounts", sure.
If you consider interfering with an election to be non political, I’m not going to bother arguing with you.
Can you point to some examples where one side (I'm assuming you mean Democrats) were handled favourably and the other not favourably? Outside of ToS violations, obviously.