By bit-level commutativity I mean that a binary operator has the property that swapping any subset of bits between the left and right operands does not change the result.
The subset may be any old thing, so in general I will call an operator `o` bit-level commutative if it satisfies the following property
$$\forall m,a,b: a \circ b = \text{mux}(m, a, b) \circ \text{mux}(m, b, a)$$
For example, by setting `m = b` we get `a ⊗ b = (a & b) ⊗ (a | b)`, sort of "bitwise sorting" the operands, with zeroes moved to the left operand and ones moved to the right operand (if possible).

Anyway, obviously AND, OR and XOR (and their complemented versions) are all bit-level commutative, indeed any purely bitwise operation (expressible as a vectorized function that takes two booleans as input) that is commutative is necessarily also bit-level commutative, for obvious reasons. Interestingly, addition is also bit-level commutative, which may be less obvious (at least in a recent coding competition, it seemed that people struggled with this). It may help to consider addition on a slightly more digit-by-digit level:
$$ a + b = \sum_i 2^i (a_i + b_i)$$
It should be clear from the bit-level "exploded" sum, that the individual bits a_{i} and b_{i} can be either swapped or not, independently for any `i`. This should get more obvious the more you think about what representing a number in a positional numeral system even *means* in the first place: it was always a sum, so adding two numbers is like taking the sum of two "big" sums, of course it does not matter which of the big sums any particular contribution comes from.

Alternatively, the old `a + b = (a ^ b) + 2(a & b)` (ie computing bit-level sums and then adding the carries separately) can explain it: both XOR and AND are bit-level commutative, so the whole expression is, too.

Anyway, a consequence is that `a + b = (a & b) + (a | b)`, which I have more commonly seen derived as:

a + b = (a ^ b) + 2(a & b) // add carries separately = (a | b) - (a & b) + 2(a & b) // see below = (a | b) + (a & b)Where

`(a ^ b) = (a | b) - (a & b)`can be explained as XOR being like OR, except that unlike OR it is 0 when both operands are set, so just subtract that case out. I always like having two (or more!) explanations from completely different directions like that.

Multiplication (including carryless multiplication and OR-multiplication) is of course *not* bit-level commutative. For example if one operand is zero and the other is odd and not 1, then the lowest bit could be swapped to make neither operand zero, and a non-zero result could be produced that way. Operations such as comparison and (by extension) min and max are obviously not bit-level commutative.

There is probably more to this, I may add some stuff later.