Doctrine Analysis
Doctrine Analysis
This Language Package’s doctrine_risk_registry.json tracks 40 doctrines across Romans 1–16, each assigned a risk tier that drives Phase 2 review routing.
Risk tier summary
| Tier | Count | Review routing | Example doctrines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 7 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Salvation, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 22 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 8 | Native speaker review | Apostleship, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
Six of the seven Critical-risk doctrines share a property not seen elsewhere in this pipeline: each has two independent, well-developed wrong answers available in everyday Bengali — one drawn from Hindu tradition (avatar, moksha/mukti, reincarnation) and one drawn from Islamic theology (Isa as prophet only, denial of the crucifixion, najat through submission and deeds). A translation that successfully dodges one wrong answer can still land on the other.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (29 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Bengali is fluent to a Hindu-background reader without checking whether it also reads correctly to a Muslim-background reader, or vice versa. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural and social sensitivity (e.g. evangelism tone in Bangladesh) rather than doctrinal contradiction.