Two modules shouldn’t coincide in content. Or, two topics of different modules shouldn’t overlap.This presumes strict context independence of content. That is, the same content in two different modules is identical in respect to its content. It may differ in meaning and significance, but there are no criteria given to separate and determine such semantic and pragmatic differences between contents.
The content of a module is semantically defined by the module; and the semantics of the module is defined by its content.
∀x, y: x, y∈C: x∈M1 ∩ y∈M2 = ⌀
How is “sameness” of contents of modules defined? Could it be possible that the exactly same content has a strictly different meaning and significance in another module? Content surveillance systems (CSS) are not checking content, they are checking syntactical structures of texts. Hence, the identical syntactical constellation can have a strict different meaning and significance. Nevertheless, such a difference in meaning with identical syntax would by taxed by a CSS as equal and therefore tagged as a copy. With that, the text model of such CSS is build along the phantasm of a “Protokollsatz” (basic sentence) in the sense of the positivist understanding of linguistics of the pre-war time in Vienna. A protocol sentence is an unambiguous, context-free true sentence. Like, the herring is red.
Content surveillance on the base of syntactic equality of texts is generally useless. It works only in a context of very restricted correlations between syntactic and semantic structures. It is best realized in a codified mono-disciplinary setting of a course and its modules. The whole approach is denying the fact and naturality of polysemy in meaningful contexts.