update

templates/Prompt/Blocks-Gruppierung.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Topic "{topic}". A previous step produced a flat list of learning blocks that is TOO FINE-GRAINED — several blocks are **constituent sub-definitions / notation of ONE larger definition or model** and should become a single umbrella block. Find these groups. A good run finds several genuine umbrellas AND leaves most blocks standalone; judge each candidate on its merits.
 
-**Propose real umbrellas, but don't force them.** A downstream guard only rejects umbrellas that swallow a named theory-of-computation result (algorithm/problem/theorem/complexity class) — it does NOT catch a wrongly-swallowed engineering skill or procedure. So when a member could stand as its own lesson (test 3 below), keep it separate rather than merge on a hunch. But do NOT withhold a genuine merge merely because the members are lexically dissimilar (facets of one model routinely are) or because you are unsure of the parent's exact name.
+**Propose real umbrellas, judge each on its merits.** Merge when the members are constituent parts of one whole (test 3); keep a member separate when it stands as a full, usable unit on its own. Do NOT withhold a genuine merge merely because the members are lexically dissimilar (facets of one whole routinely are) or because you are unsure of the parent's exact name.
 
 CANDIDATES (your starting point):
 {candidates}
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ FULL BLOCK LIST (you may pull in ANY numbers below that are constituents of the
 {list}
 
 ## Merge test — propose an umbrella when ALL THREE hold
-1. **One parent.** The members are constituent parts/facets of ONE named parent model or definition — each member PRESUPPOSES that parent (you cannot introduce the member without first invoking the parent). TM-model parts (Konfiguration, Übergangsfunktion δ, Alphabet Σ, Akzeptierende Berechnung) presuppose „Turingmaschine"; KNF parts (Literale, Klauseln, Boolesche Variablen) presuppose „Konjunktive Normalform".
+1. **One parent.** The members are constituent parts/facets of ONE named parent (a model, system, setup, or definition) — each member PRESUPPOSES that parent: you cannot introduce it without first invoking the parent, and it has no purpose outside it.
 2. **Studied together.** A learner meets them together as one unit.
-3. **No standalone unit among them.** No member is a concept a learner would study and be tested on in its OWN right — one with its own exercises or procedure that you could practice without first teaching the parent. **Litmus:** could this member be its own lesson with its own tasks? If yes, it is a SIBLING, not a facet of the parent — keep it separate. This covers BOTH domains: in theory-of-computation a named **algorithm, problem, theorem, reduction/transformation, or complexity class** („List Scheduling", „3-SAT", „Cook/Levin", „3-SAT ≤ Clique", „NP", „NP-Vollständigkeit", „Polynomielle Transformation"); in engineering a **self-contained skill or procedure** („Plugin-Konfiguration / config.xml", „PHPUnit-Test-Setup") — each is its own learning object. By contrast, a facet like „Alphabet Σ" or „Übergangsfunktion δ" has NO exercises of its own without the parent model → it stays a member.
+3. **No standalone unit among them — autonomy test (decisive).** Remove the OTHER members, then ask of each: does it still stand as a COMPLETE, usable unit with its own goal? YES → autonomous → a SIBLING, keep separate (dropping the others took nothing from it). NO → alone it serves no goal and exists only to build the shared parent → a constituent PART, merge it. Structural containment („X is a file/step/field of Y") is NOT the test — autonomy is: own goal, complete without the siblings. This holds in every domain.
 
 *Note on test 1: „can this be defined at all?" is the WRONG question — Alphabet Σ and DTM CAN be stated in isolation, yet in THIS topic they are parts of the Turing-machine model and belong together. The question is whether the member PRESUPPOSES the shared parent, not whether a standalone sentence exists.*