update

templates/QA/QA-Bausteine.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+You are an INDEPENDENT quality auditor for a learning-block inventory on the topic "{topic}". For each block title below decide: is this a GENUINE standalone learning block — one self-contained concept/method/theorem a learner can study → **ja** — or is it NOT a real block → **nein**?
+
+**nein** applies to: bare notation or symbol fragments ("αÜbergang", "|x|"), truncated/mangled titles, exercise references, meta/organizational entries, or titles so vague no one could say what to learn.
+
+BLOCKS:
+{blocks}
+
+When in doubt about the SCOPE but the concept is real → ja. When the title is not a learnable concept → nein.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "ja", "2": "nein"}}}}
+{extra}

templates/QA/QA-Dubletten.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+You are an INDEPENDENT quality auditor for a learning-block inventory on the topic "{topic}". A separate pipeline built the inventory; you re-check suspicious pairs with fresh eyes. For each pair: do A and B denote the SAME concept (one should be merged away) → **ja**, or two genuinely different concepts → **nein**?
+
+SUSPICIOUS PAIRS:
+{pairs}
+
+Rules:
+- Same concept under two names/spellings/facets → ja. A named variant, a relation, or a different scope → nein.
+- Judge on the meaning, not the wording. When genuinely unsure → nein.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "ja", "2": "nein"}}}}
+{extra}

templates/QA/QA-Guide-Fakten.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+You are an INDEPENDENT quality auditor for a learning guide on the topic "{topic}". A separate pipeline wrote and fact-checked the sections; you re-check them with fresh eyes and your own domain knowledge. For each numbered SECTION below: does it contain at least one factually WRONG statement about the topic → **ja**, or is everything factually sound → **nein**?
+
+SECTIONS (excerpts):
+{sections}
+
+Rules:
+- Judge factual CORRECTNESS only — not style, length, completeness or didactics.
+- Wrong = contradicts how the topic actually works (wrong syntax, wrong behavior, wrong rule, invented restriction).
+- Simplifications that are broadly correct for a beginner are NOT wrong.
+- When genuinely unsure → nein.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "nein", "2": "ja"}}}}
+{extra}

templates/QA/QA-Luecken.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+You are an INDEPENDENT quality auditor for a learning-block inventory on the topic "{topic}". Below are source-material sections that the inventory maps to NO block. For each section: does it contain exam-relevant substance that DESERVES its own block (a definition, method, theorem, technique the inventory misses) → **ja**, or is it filler/organizational/already covered implicitly → **nein**?
+
+UNCOVERED SECTIONS:
+{sections}
+
+Rules:
+- Organizational text, prefaces, repeated examples of covered concepts → nein.
+- A concrete concept the material teaches but no block captures → ja.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "ja", "2": "nein"}}}}
+{extra}

templates/QA/QA-Repair-Beleg.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+You are re-checking EXISTING inventory blocks on the topic "{topic}" that a QA scan flagged as possibly NOT covered by the learning material. For each block: do the excerpts show the material actually treats this block → **ja** (keep), or is there truly no coverage → **nein** (remove)?
+
+FLAGGED BLOCKS (each with its best-matching material excerpts):
+{blocks}
+
+Rules:
+- **ja** = any real coverage: a heading, definition, algorithm, proof, exercise or substantial passage about the block's subject — also under a synonym, symbol variant or hyphenated spelling (PDF extraction mangles titles).
+- **nein** ONLY when the excerpts clearly have nothing to do with the block.
+- This removes existing content, so when in doubt → **ja**.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "ja", "2": "nein"}}}}
+{extra}

templates/QA/QA-Sub-Dubletten.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+You are an INDEPENDENT quality auditor for a learning-block inventory on the topic "{topic}". Each block is decomposed into sub-blocks; every sub-block becomes its own paragraph in the learning guide. A separate pipeline built them; you re-check suspicious pairs with fresh eyes. For each pair: do A and B state the SAME thing (one would be redundant in the guide) → **ja**, or two genuinely different statements → **nein**?
+
+Each entry names its block in [brackets] — the pair may span two different blocks.
+
+SUSPICIOUS PAIRS:
+{pairs}
+
+Rules:
+- Same statement in different wording, or one being a pure subset of the other → ja.
+- Same concept but DIFFERENT facets (base rule vs. special case vs. edge condition) → nein.
+- The same rule applied to two DIFFERENT contexts/blocks → nein (each application is its own learning content).
+- Opposite statements (negation) → nein. When genuinely unsure → nein.
+
+Reply with ONLY the JSON — no other text, no code fences.
+Format (one verdict per number):
+{{"relevant": {{"1": "ja", "2": "nein"}}}}
+{extra}