I think I understand the Neyman-Pearson lemma, but I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning with which it's used as a building block to build tests for composite hypotheses.
Take this worked example, say. At the end, they say that "the" critical region C defines a UMP test, but from what I can tell, they've got a whole family of regions C, one for each alternative hypothesis $\mu_\alpha$. So you still can't say you've found a single test which is UMP for the entrire alternative hypothesis $\mu_\alpha > 10.