18 lines
1.0 KiB
Markdown
18 lines
1.0 KiB
Markdown
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}
|