If everyone considers these two events as merged, then we ignore the asymmetry of benefits and strategic risks for Jesus.
The healing of the paralytic has an immediate benefit in terms of divine validation, a strong signal to skeptics, while the teaching on the mountain is an investment with delayed returns.
The risk balance is fundamentally different: a failure during the healing would have instantly undermined the authority, whereas a less impactful teaching would not have had the same immediate impact.
Treating these events as uniform misses the sequential strategy of Jesus to build his legitimacy and influence.
For example, simple teaching without prior demonstration of divine power could have led him to be perceived as just another philosopher, rather than the messianic figure he sought to embody.