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 generously.** A deterministic guard downstream rejects any umbrella that swallows a named algorithm/problem/theorem, so a wrong-but-plausible merge is cheap — a missed umbrella is not. Do NOT withhold a 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, 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.
 
 CANDIDATES (your starting point):
 {candidates}
@@ -11,13 +11,14 @@ FULL BLOCK LIST (you may pull in ANY numbers below that are constituents of the
 ## 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".
 2. **Studied together.** A learner meets them together as one unit.
-3. **No standalone unit among them.** No member is itself a named **algorithm, problem, theorem, reduction/transformation, or complexity class** („List Scheduling", „3-SAT", „Cook/Levin", „3-SAT ≤ Clique", „NP", „NP-Vollständigkeit", „Polynomielle Transformation"). Each of those is its own concept, so a group containing one is a set of SIBLINGS, not the decomposition of one model — keep them separate.
+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.
 
 *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.*
 
 ## Examples
 DO NOT MERGE — distinct named units that merely share a topic:
 - „Greedy-Algorithmus GA" + „ModifiedGreedy" + „Multiple-Choice-Knapsack" → two algorithms + a problem, each standalone (test 3 fails). Keep separate.
+- „Plugin" + „Plugin-Konfiguration (config.xml)" + „Plugin lifecycle" → „Plugin-Konfiguration" is its OWN unit (authoring config fields, snippets, its own tasks), a SIBLING of „Plugin", not a facet (test 3 fails). Structural containment — the file belongs to the plugin — is NOT the merge test; being studied as one definition is. Keep „Plugin-Konfiguration" standalone.
 
 MERGE — one definition decomposed (the canonical cases — end here so this is your default lens):
 - „Alphabet Σ" + „NDTM" + „DTM" + „Akzeptierende Berechnung" + „Folgekonfiguration" → ONE umbrella **„Turingmaschine (Modell)"**. (The members are lexically very different from each other — that is EXPECTED for facets of one model and is NOT a reason to keep them apart.)