lesson 13: add shadcnGroup layout matching MuSig2 pattern

[harsh04044]

Problem

Lesson 13 had all its nodes ungrouped and scattered across the canvas.No clear entry point, no stage separation, hard to know where to start as a student.

What this changes

Added shadcnGroup nodes to p13_Taproot_MultiSig.json following the same pattern already used in Lesson 14 (MuSig2).

• SIGNERS (green) - key generation for all participants
• SCRIPT (indigo) - NUMS key, OP_CHECKSIGADD script, taptree
• PREIMAGE (orange) - BIP341 sighash construction
• TRANSACTION (purple) - witness, TX template, verify, TXID

No logic changes

JSON only. No backend, no frontend code, no calculation behavior touched.
All node connections and values are preserved.

Screen.Recording.2026-04-12.at.1.58.51.AM.1.mp4

[rawBit-io]

thanks for working on this.

For me the grouping still does not convince me. I don’t want to prescribe upfront how it should be grouped — that should come naturally from the logic of the flow itself. And with grouping / protocol map, for me it is only really clear at the end whether it actually simplifies the lesson or not.

Here it still does not feel like the grouping really helps the readability of the flow. I think you should also learn a bit how the flow map / protocol map works and define a clear grouping logic that is really appropriate for this flow, not just carry over the grouping pattern from MuSig2.

[harsh04044]

thanks for working on this.

For me the grouping still does not convince me. I don’t want to prescribe upfront how it should be grouped — that should come naturally from the logic of the flow itself. And with grouping / protocol map, for me it is only really clear at the end whether it actually simplifies the lesson or not.

Here it still does not feel like the grouping really helps the readability of the flow. I think you should also learn a bit how the flow map / protocol map works and define a clear grouping logic that is really appropriate for this flow, not just carry over the grouping pattern from MuSig2.

Got it, I'll study the protocol map more carefully and rethink the grouping from the logic of the flow itself rather than carrying over MuSig2's structure. Will update the PR once I have a clearer grouping that actually fits Lesson 13.

[rawBit-io]

thanks for the update and for trying another pass.

But for me the grouping still does not work yet. I think you should spend some time really looking into the flow map / protocol map feature, and also write a clear story for this flow first — why it should be grouped in this particular way, and how that grouping is supposed to simplify the lesson.

Right now I still don’t see that logic clearly in the result.

[harsh04044]

thanks for the update and for trying another pass.

But for me the grouping still does not work yet. I think you should spend some time really looking into the flow map / protocol map feature, and also write a clear story for this flow first — why it should be grouped in this particular way, and how that grouping is supposed to simplify the lesson.

Right now I still don’t see that logic clearly in the result.

@rawBit-io drafting this PR, i am currently deciding the grouping, first i will discuss it with u on discord then i will reopen this pr with updated grouping