Problem

The PR 'Use block naming for marking blocks as overridable in patterns' introduced a new way to mark a block within a pattern as overridable by naming the block.

A problem is that this piggybacking on the block naming functionality doesn't resulting effect of naming a block isn't clear to the user, there's no mention of pattern overrides anywhere.

Conversely, if the UI is changed, but ends up too geared towards pattern overrides, users might be confused about how to name a block for organizational purposes (see Pattern Overrides: No opt-out mechanism exists for named overrides).

A secondary flow for creating patterns is to create some blocks (e.g. while editing a post), select them and create a pattern from them. The existing names for these blocks will be retained, and could be used for to create pattern overrides, but potentially a user should be aware of the resulting pattern's behavior.

A related problem is making the user aware of the risks of renaming a block. After #59268, the block name is used as the connecting glue for the block bindings feature that drives pattern overrides. It's what's used to reference the content values stores in a pattern instance. If the block name changes, it can result in those content values no longer being referenced correctly.