Linguistic Gap Analysis — Titus (English–Cantonese)

Purpose and Scope

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Titus curriculum. It analyzes the destination language’s (Cantonese, Hong Kong/Guangdong/Macau Traditional-script Protestant register) capacity to carry the seven curriculum doctrines without collapsing into, or being silently absorbed by, adjacent folk-religious, Confucian, or secular-commercial semantic fields already documented in the baseline Romans Language Package. It covers all three chapters of Titus, with the core passage (2:11–3:8) as the theological anchor, not the analytical boundary.

Four outputs are produced, per the Step 8 mandate:

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix — per-doctrine inventory of available Cantonese terms, their weaknesses, and recommended handling strategy.
2. Missing Vocabulary Analysis — concepts with no ready-made Cantonese lexical slot, requiring compound coinage.
3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods — concepts with too MANY available Cantonese words, where fencing (disambiguating notes, consistent-rendering rules) is required to prevent drift or syncretism.
4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions — a governing rule set for when to transliterate vs. render conceptually.
5. Ranked Ambiguity List — the letter’s highest-risk translation decision points, ranked for Phase 2 review prioritization.

All findings extend, and do not contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json and doctrine_risk_registry.json. Terms already fixed by baseline (恩典, 義, 稱義, 救恩, 聖靈, 神, 信心, 律法, 榮耀, 使徒, 揀選, 先知, 勸勉) are treated here as fixed inputs; this analysis addresses the NEW lexical territory Titus opens up and the interaction effects between new and baseline terms.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Cantonese Term(s)	Weaknesses / Collision Risk	Recommended Strategy
Grace That Trains for Godly Living	恩典 (baseline) + 顯現 (epiphaneia) + 教導/訓練 (paideuō) + 敬虔/不敬虔 (eusebeia/asebeia) + 自律/節制 (sōphrōn)	(a) 恩典 alone does not carry the personified-agent sense Titus 2:11–12 requires (grace “appears” and “trains,” grammatically the subject of the verbs); a literal transfer risks readers hearing 恩典 as a static gift rather than an active tutor. (b) 顯現 risks assimilation to 顯靈 (temple deity “manifesting power,” extremely common Hong Kong shrine-culture idiom) if not distinguished. (c) 敬虔 shares 虔 with 虔誠, already flagged in baseline as generic piety toward any deity.	Render 2:11–12 as a single grammatical unit where 恩典 is explicitly the subject of 顯現 and 教導 (“恩典…顯現…教導我們…”), preserving Paul’s personified-agent syntax rather than passivizing it into “we received grace and became godly.” Footnote 顯現 at every occurrence distinguishing it from 顯靈. Anchor 敬虔 to “the true God” explicitly in surrounding clause structure, never left free-floating.
Qualifications for Elders	長老 (presbyteros) + 監督 (episkopos) + 無可指摘 (anenklētos) + 只有一個妻子嘅丈夫 + 信主嘅子女 + 唔受管教/悖逆 + 虔敬/有節制 + 堅守合乎教義嘅真道	(a) 長老 collides with the Pearl River Delta village clan-elder figure, an inherited-patriarchy office tied to ancestor-worship ritual leadership (cf. baseline’s 祠堂/father-ancestor-veneration flag). (b) 監督 risks conflation with the later hierarchical Anglican/Catholic “Bishop” (主教) office prominent in Hong Kong’s colonial-era church history — a structurally different, translocal office. (c) 虔敬/敬虔/聖潔 form a three-way near-synonym cluster in the same virtue list (1:8) with no natural Cantonese three-way distinction.	Introduce 長老 and 監督 together in 1:5–7 with an explicit note that they name ONE local-congregation office viewed from two angles (moral standing / functional oversight), not two ranks. Never use 主教 as a gloss or footnote-equivalent for 監督. For the 1:8 virtue cluster, retain three distinct Cantonese terms (虔敬/敬虔/聖潔-adjacent 有節制) but supply a single consolidated footnote at first occurrence explaining the cluster rather than footnoting each word separately, to avoid learner fatigue.
Sound Doctrine and Good Works	純正嘅教義 (sound doctrine, structural keyword) + 善行 (good works) + 有益/無益、虛空 (profitable/unprofitable) + 榜樣 (typos) + 使教義更加美好 (adorn doctrine)	(a) 純正 (“healthy/pure”) risks being read as a purely rhetorical “makes sense” endorsement rather than the letter’s deliberate medical metaphor (healthy teaching that produces healthy living, opposite of a corrupting disease). (b) 善行 is the single highest-stakes term in this doctrine: baseline already REJECTED 善行 as a gloss for 義 precisely because it risks a merit-earns-standing reading; reusing it here (correctly, for “fruit not root”) without a footnote risks readers importing the very merit logic baseline warned against.	Render 純正嘅教義 identically at all five occurrences (1:9, 1:13, 2:1, 2:2, 2:8) — this is Titus’s parallel to the baseline’s Romans 1:16-17/8:28/10:9-10 fixed-rendering requirement. Mandatory footnote at EVERY 善行 occurrence (2:14; 3:1; 3:8; 3:14): “善行 here names the fruit of salvation already received, never its cause or basis (see 3:5).”
Salvation by Grace not Works	救恩 (baseline noun) + 拯救 (sōzō verb) + 行為 (erga) + 憐憫 (eleos) + 慈愛 (chrēstotēs) + 愛人嘅心 (philanthrōpia) + 稱義 (baseline) + 後嗣 (klēronomos) + 永生 (baseline-adjacent)	(a) This doctrine’s central verse (3:5) is a single, dense sentence structurally built to EXCLUDE 行為 as salvation’s ground while affirming 憐憫 as its ground — Cantonese word order must preserve this contrast, not smooth it into a softer “not only by works but also by mercy” reading. (b) 慈愛 is adjacent to, but MUST be fenced from, 慈悲 (Guanyin’s stock epithet 大慈大悲, already forbidden by baseline for salvation). (c) 愛人嘅心 is adjacent to 仁愛, which risks the Confucian 仁 collision already flagged Critical under baseline righteousness.	Preserve 3:5’s negative-then-positive clause structure explicitly: “唔係因為…嘅行為，而係因為…嘅憐憫” (not because of works of righteousness… but because of mercy). Never substitute 慈悲 for 慈愛 under any stylistic pressure. Never substitute 仁愛 for 愛人嘅心. Both substitutions must appear on the segment-level forbidden list for Phase 2, parallel to baseline’s Critical forbidden-substitution list.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit	重生 (palingenesia) + 更新 (anakainōsis) + 聖靈 (baseline) + 澈落/傾降 (ekcheō)	This is the single highest-novelty risk in the whole curriculum. 重生’s literal “born again” sense sits directly adjacent to 投胎轉世 (reincarnation/rebirth-into-a-new-womb), a term baseline ALREADY forbids absolutely for resurrection. Unlike other Titus terms, there is no safer alternate Cantonese word family available — 重生 is the only theologically adequate and already-established Hong Kong Christian rendering, so the risk cannot be avoided by word choice; it must be managed entirely through mandatory framing/footnoting.	Every occurrence of 重生 requires: (i) mandatory theologian review flag (already set in the term registry), (ii) an explicit accompanying phrase anchoring it to Christ’s finished, one-time work and the Spirit’s agency (e.g., “藉住聖靈,一次性嘅重生”), (iii) a standing teaching note distinguishing 重生 from any cyclical, repeatable, or self-achieved rebirth concept. Never allow 重生 to stand alone without this anchoring context in any Phase 2 output.
Submission to Authority	順服 (hypotassō, marital + household-slave) + 服從 (peitharcheō, civic) + 執政掌權者 (archai kai exousiai) + 因信而生嘅順服 (baseline compound, God-directed)	Cantonese has only one core root (順) for structurally different NT submission relations: toward God (baseline compound), spouse (2:5), master (2:9), and civil ruler (3:1). A single undifferentiated 順服 risks readers collapsing marital, employment, and civic submission into one flattened command with the same absolute weight as submission to God — a serious pastoral and political-sensitivity risk in the contemporary Hong Kong context.	Retain 順服 for 2:5/2:9 and reserve 服從 for the specifically civic sense at 3:1, mirroring the Greek’s own choice to vary vocabulary at 3:1 (πειθαρχέω rather than ὑποτάσσω, though both occur in that verse). Require a standing cross-context note at first occurrence in each chapter clarifying these are distinct relational spheres, none absolute in the way submission to God is, and civic submission in particular is never a political-loyalty test.
Avoiding Divisive Controversies	愚昧嘅爭論 (mōrai zētēseis) + 族譜 (genealogia) + 紛爭、為律法而爭論 (eris/machai nomikai) + 引起紛爭分裂嘅人 (hairetikos anthrōpos) + 自我定罪 (autokatakritos)	(a) 族譜 carries deep, positive cultural weight in Cantonese/Pearl River Delta clan culture (ancestral genealogy records central to clan identity and Ching Ming/Chung Yeung observance) — a direct semantic collision where the SOURCE text’s negative judgment could be misheard as a blanket critique of an honored cultural practice. (b) 引起紛爭分裂嘅人 must NOT be rendered with the fully-loaded later technical term 異端 (“heretic” in the formal doctrinal-condemnation sense), which overstates the letter’s earlier, behavior-focused usage.	Mandatory footnote at 3:9’s 族譜 occurrence explicitly scoping Paul’s critique to a specific first-century speculative theological controversy (likely tied to the circumcision party of ch.1), explicitly NOT a critique of valuing family history or ancestral records generally. Never use 異端 for hairetikos anthrōpos; retain the descriptive-behavioral 引起紛爭分裂嘅人 consistently.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary Analysis

These are concepts for which Cantonese has no single pre-existing lexical item adequate to the Greek concept; all require compound construction, and most were newly coined for this curriculum in 08_core_glossary.md / bible_term_registry.json. Listed with the coinage strategy applied:

Concept	Gap Type	Coinage Strategy Applied	Residual Risk
ἐπιφάνεια / ἐπιφαίνω (epiphaneia)	No Cantonese word for “a singular historical in-breaking appearance” distinct from repeatable manifestation	Compound 顯現 (surface + appear), deliberately avoiding the -靈 morpheme family (顯靈) that would suggest deity-manifestation-at-a-shrine	Residual risk if 顯現 is used loosely elsewhere in Cantonese Christian usage for ordinary “appearing” without the letter’s singular-historical-event weight; requires contextual reinforcement each time.
λαὸς περιούσιος (a people for God’s own possession)	No indigenous Cantonese covenant-possession concept; nearest cultural analogue (clan lineage/ownership) is the wrong register	Compound 屬神嘅子民 (“a people belonging to God”) built from ordinary possessive grammar (屬) + 子民 (subjects/people), avoiding property/commercial-ownership connotations	Requires an Exodus 19:5 OT-background footnote given low OT literacy; without it, 屬神嘅子民 reads as merely “God’s followers” rather than covenant-possession language.
παλιγγενεσία (regeneration)	See doctrine matrix above — 重生 is available but sits in a crowded/dangerous neighborhood, effectively a “high-risk near-miss” rather than a true vocabulary gap	Use existing Hong Kong Protestant coinage 重生; manage risk through mandatory footnoting rather than avoiding the term	See Ranked Ambiguity List, #1.
ἱεροπρεπής (temple-fitting reverent conduct)	No Cantonese word carries the Greek’s literal “temple-appropriate” root without importing actual temple-ritual-propriety associations	Paraphrase 莊重聖潔 (dignified + holy/set-apart), deliberately NOT transliterating or calquing the ἱερός root	Loses the “sacred-space-fitting” nuance of the Greek entirely; acceptable trade-off given the alternative (合乎廟堂規矩) would be doctrinally worse.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (husband of one wife)	No single Cantonese word; requires full descriptive clause	Compound clause 只有一個妻子嘅丈夫	Requires historical footnote (pre-1971 Hong Kong concubinage/妾 abolition) so the qualification is not read as anachronistically self-evident to modern monogamy-only readers, nor as irrelevant history.
ἀδόκιμος (failed the metallurgical test)	No Cantonese word preserves the metal-assaying metaphor	Paraphrase 經不起考驗 (“cannot withstand testing”)	Loses the specific metallurgical-refinement image; acceptable given no natural Cantonese metallurgy idiom carries the same spiritual-genuineness sense without additional explanation.
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος (trustworthy saying formula)	No fixed Cantonese liturgical/literary formula corresponds to this Pastoral Epistles technical formula	Fixed phrase 呢話係可信嘅, to be used identically wherever the formula recurs in the wider Pastoral Epistles corpus (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy) for cross-document consistency	Low risk; mainly a consistency-discipline issue for Phase 2 batch processing across multiple future curricula, not a semantic-collision issue.
αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος (early, pre-technical “divisive person”)	Cantonese’s only readily available strong term (異端) is anachronistically over-loaded with later doctrinal-condemnation weight	Paraphrase 引起紛爭分裂嘅人 (behavior-descriptive, not category-naming)	Slight loss of rhetorical force compared to a single punchy noun; deliberate trade-off to avoid overstating the historical semantic development.

General observation: Titus’s missing-vocabulary gaps cluster overwhelmingly around (a) the letter’s dense, compressed doctrinal formulas (2:11-14; 3:4-7) where Greek achieves in single words/short phrases what Cantonese can only achieve through multi-word compounds, and (b) household-code and civic vocabulary where first-century social institutions (chattel slavery, patron-client civic order) have no living Cantonese institutional equivalent and must be handled through historical-contextualization footnotes rather than lexical substitution.

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Unlike missing vocabulary, these are concepts where Cantonese offers multiple plausible candidate terms, several of which are already claimed by, or dangerously adjacent to, Hong Kong folk-religious, Confucian, or secular-commercial semantic fields. Each requires an explicit “fence” — a standing disambiguation rule for Phase 2.

3.1 The 虔/聖/淨 piety-and-purity cluster

Crowded with: 敬虔 (eusebeia, godliness), 虔敬 (hosios, devout), 虔誠 (baseline-rejected generic piety), 聖潔 (baseline holy), 純潔 (hagnos, chaste), 清淨 (Daoist/Buddhist ritual purity, baseline-rejected), 莊重聖潔 (hieroprepēs). Fence: Maintain baseline’s existing fence against 虔誠 and 清淨 without modification. Add a NEW fence specific to Titus: 敬虔 and 虔敬 must never be used interchangeably despite their near-identical Cantonese surface form — 敬虔 (eusebeia) names godward reverence expressed in ongoing conduct (1:1; 2:12), while 虔敬 (hosios) names personal devoutness as a discrete elder-qualification-list item (1:8). Provide one consolidated footnote at 1:8’s first occurrence rather than repeating at every subsequent instance.

3.2 Grace, mercy, kindness — the “unmerited divine disposition” cluster

Crowded with: 恩典 (charis, baseline Critical), 憐憫 (eleos), 慈愛 (chrēstotēs), 愛人嘅心 (philanthrōpia) — four distinct Greek words converging on God’s saving disposition within 3:4-5 alone, plus the ever-present shadow terms 福氣, 功德, 慈悲, 仁愛 already forbidden by baseline or flagged above. Fence: This is the single densest term-cluster in the letter (four distinct technical terms in two verses). Recommend a dedicated teaching sidebar (outside the running translation) at 3:4-5 listing all four Cantonese terms side by side with a one-line gloss each, so learners see the deliberate accumulation of near-synonyms as Paul’s rhetorical strategy (piling up grounds for salvation-by-grace) rather than experiencing it as redundant or confusing vocabulary variation.

3.3 The submission/obedience (順/服) cluster

Crowded with: 順服 (hypotassō, marital/household-slave), 服從 (peitharcheō, civic), 因信而生嘅順服 (baseline compound, God-directed), 孝順 (baseline-rejected filial duty), 悖逆/唔受管教 (anypotaktos, the negative pole). Fence: Already addressed in the doctrine matrix (§1) above. Additional fencing note: never allow 孝順 to surface even as an explanatory gloss for 2:5’s wifely submission, despite surface plausibility (both involve household deference) — 孝順 names a Confucian generational-duty ethic (child toward parent) categorically different from Titus’s peer-household-order instruction (spouse toward spouse).

3.4 The δοῦλος (doulos) word family — positive and negative valence

Crowded with: 神嘅奴僕 (doulos theou, Paul’s positive self-designation, 1:1), 奴僕 (household-code slave, 2:9-10), 被各種私慾同享樂所奴役 (enslaved to passions, 3:3, negative). Fence: Same root word family (奴/僕/奴役) spans the letter’s most positive self-identification and its most negative pre-conversion description. This is a DELIBERATE Pauline wordplay, not an accident — fence by requiring a cross-reference footnote at all three occurrences pointing to each other, so the deliberate contrast is visible to Cantonese readers rather than appearing as incidental vocabulary reuse.

3.5 Elder-office vocabulary vs. clan/village authority vocabulary

Crowded with: 長老 (presbyteros), 監督 (episkopos), 主教 (later Bishop office, forbidden as gloss), 村中長老/族長 (village clan-elder/patriarch, not in glossary but a live cultural referent), 敬老 (generic age-respect). Fence: Introduce 長老/監督 in 1:5-7 with an explicit note (see §1 matrix) that these name a doctrinally- and morally-qualified congregational office established by apostolic delegation, NOT an inherited village-patriarch position tied to ancestor-worship leadership, and NOT a mere age-seniority courtesy title.

3.6 Genealogy/lineage vocabulary vs. Cantonese clan-culture vocabulary

Crowded with: 族譜 (genealogia, 3:9’s negative referent) vs. the strongly positive cultural weight 族譜/家譜/宗族 carry generally in Cantonese Pearl River Delta culture (ancestral hall records, Ching Ming/Chung Yeung observance). Fence: As specified in §1 and §2 above — mandatory scoping footnote restricting the critique to a specific first-century controversy.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Titus, like Romans, follows the established Hong Kong Protestant convention of paraphrase-over-transliteration for theological technical vocabulary, reserving transliteration strictly for proper names and a small closed set of liturgical exclamations. This section states the governing rule and applies it to every borderline case surfaced in this curriculum.

Governing rule (inherited from baseline, extended for Titus):

• Transliterate only: (a) proper names of persons and places (耶穌, 基督, 保羅, 提多 [Titus], 革哩底 [Crete], 尼哥波立 [Nicopolis]), and (b) the small closed set of established liturgical transliterations (阿們, 哈利路亞). Titus introduces no new members to category (b).
• Paraphrase into a compound Cantonese phrase for all technical theological concepts, even where the underlying Greek is itself a rare or coined compound (e.g., λαὸς περιούσιος, ἱεροπρεπής). This preserves the baseline’s cross-checking against the Traditional-character Chinese Union Version tradition, which itself paraphrases rather than transliterates Greek theological vocabulary.

Case-by-case application for Titus’s new vocabulary:

Term	Decision	Rationale
Titus (the person)	Transliterate: 提多	Established CUV/Hong Kong Bible-tradition proper-name form; no risk.
Crete / Cretans	Transliterate: 克里特 / 克里特人	Proper geographic name; standard practice.
ἐπιφάνεια (epiphaneia)	Paraphrase: 顯現	A transliteration (e.g., a coined “epi-fannee” loanword) would be meaningless to readers and would forfeit the chance to convey the concept in native vocabulary; paraphrase carries real semantic content and can be fenced against 顯靈 (§3), whereas an opaque transliteration could not be fenced at all.
παλιγγενεσία (palingenesia)	Paraphrase: 重生	Already the established Hong Kong Protestant coinage; transliterating a Greek compound this doctrinally central would break continuity with existing Cantonese Christian literature and Bible translations.
σωτήρ (sōtēr)	Paraphrase: 救主	Consistent with baseline’s paraphrase pattern for all soteriological titles (救恩, not a transliterated “so-tay-ria”).
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος formula	Paraphrase (fixed formula): 呢話係可信嘅	A literary/rhetorical formula, not a single technical noun; paraphrase preserves its function as a recognizable recurring marker across the Pastoral Epistles.
Epimenides (the “their own prophet” source, referenced but unnamed in the text)	N/A — not named in the biblical text itself	No transliteration decision required in the translated text; may be supplied only in a translator/teaching footnote, using the standard scholarly transliteration 埃皮梅尼德斯 if the footnote names him explicitly.

Summary principle: Titus’s vocabulary, though dense with unique compressed formulas, contains no case where transliteration would outperform paraphrase for reader comprehension. This confirms and extends the baseline’s paraphrase-favoring convention without exception.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × syncretism/collision proximity × frequency), for Phase 2 review-routing prioritization. All items ranked High or Critical below require mandatory human theologian review per the baseline escalation rules, extended to this curriculum.

1. 重生 (regeneration, 3:5) — CRITICAL. Highest-risk item in the entire curriculum. Its literal “born again” sense sits immediately adjacent to 投胎轉世 (reincarnation), a term baseline already forbids absolutely for resurrection. Unlike other risks below, no alternative word choice reduces this risk — it can only be managed through mandatory anchoring language and footnoting at every occurrence. Ambiguity: without explicit anchoring, a Cantonese reader steeped in folk-Buddhist rebirth concepts could hear 3:5 as describing a spiritual technique for achieving a better rebirth rather than a completed, Spirit-wrought, one-time new birth.

2. ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (2:13) — CRITICAL. Grammatical ambiguity risk: Cantonese syntax must not permit a reading that splits “our great God” and “Savior” into two separate referents (God the Father and, separately, Jesus as Savior). The fixed rendering 我哋偉大嘅神同救主耶穌基督 must be tested against natural Cantonese parsing to confirm it forces the single-referent (Christ is both God and Savior) reading Paul intends, not a two-referent misparse.

3. 3:5’s works/mercy contrast (ἔργα vs. ἔλεος) — CRITICAL. The letter’s central soteriological sentence. Ambiguity risk: Cantonese clause ordering could inadvertently soften “not by works… but by mercy” into a weaker “not only by works… but also by mercy,” reopening exactly the works-contribution loophole the verse is built to close. Requires explicit contrastive conjunction testing in Phase 2 QA.

4. 善行 (good works) across 2:14, 3:1, 3:8, 3:14 — HIGH. Ambiguity risk compounds with #3: because 善行 was explicitly rejected elsewhere (baseline, for 義) as risking a merit-earns-standing reading, its rehabilitated, correct use here (as fruit, not root) is fragile and requires footnoting at every single occurrence without exception — a four-time repetition risk of footnote fatigue leading to omission in later occurrences.

5. 順服/服從 across marital (2:5), household-slave (2:9), and civic (3:1) contexts — HIGH. Ambiguity risk: a single undifferentiated Cantonese rendering could flatten three structurally distinct relational spheres into one undifferentiated absolute-obedience command, with serious pastoral (household) and political (civic, given Hong Kong’s sensitivities) consequences if collapsed.

6. 慈愛 (chrēstotēs, 3:4) vs. 慈悲 — HIGH. Single-character-swap risk: 慈愛 and 慈悲 differ by only one character (愛 vs 悲) and are near-homophonic in casual speech patterns; a translator or reviewer’s autopilot substitution toward the more common 慈悲 would directly import the Guanyin syncretism baseline explicitly warns against.

7. 監督 (episkopos, 1:7) vs. 主教 (Bishop) — HIGH. Institutional-category ambiguity: readers with Anglican/Catholic background (well-represented in Hong Kong’s colonial church history) may assume 監督 names a translocal hierarchical office; requires explicit disambiguation to preserve Titus’s flat, local-congregation ecclesiology.

8. 族譜 (genealogia, 3:9) vs. Cantonese clan-genealogy culture — HIGH. Cultural-resonance ambiguity: without scoping, the verse could be heard as a biblical critique of valuing family history/ancestry generally, a practice with deep positive resonance in Cantonese culture, rather than a narrow critique of a specific first-century theological controversy.

9. 敬虔 vs. 虔敬 vs. 聖潔 (1:1, 1:8, 2:12 cluster) — MEDIUM-HIGH. Near-synonym ambiguity risk within a single virtue-list context (1:8), where three closely related but technically distinct concepts must remain distinguishable to careful readers without becoming a distracting three-footnote thicket.

10. 奴僕 word family across 1:1 (positive), 2:9-10 (household-code), 3:3 (negative) — MEDIUM-HIGH. Wordplay-recognition ambiguity: if the deliberate positive/negative contrast Paul builds across the letter is not cross-referenced, Cantonese readers may miss the rhetorical structure entirely, experiencing three unrelated uses of a common word rather than a unified argument.

11. 顯現 (epiphaneia, 2:11/2:13/3:4) vs. 顯靈 — MEDIUM. Structural-keyword risk: because this word recurs three times as the letter’s spine, a single unflagged lapse toward 顯靈-adjacent framing in teaching material (even without changing the Cantonese word itself) could undermine the non-repeatable, historical sense across all three occurrences at once.

12. 引起紛爭分裂嘅人 (hairetikos anthrōpos, 3:10) vs. 異端 — MEDIUM. Anachronism risk: using the fully-loaded later term would import centuries of subsequent church-historical heresy-trial connotation into a verse describing a much narrower behavioral problem.

---

6. Summary Recommendation for Phase 2 Handoff

This curriculum’s risk profile differs from the baseline Romans profile in one important respect: Titus concentrates an unusually high density of Critical/High risk decisions into a very short span of text (2:11-3:8 alone contains items #1, #2, #3, #6, and #11 above). Phase 2 processing should NOT treat this density as reason to relax per-item scrutiny; if anything, the core passage’s doctrinal density means segment-level review fatigue is a live operational risk distinct from the translation risks themselves, and reviewers should be alerted to this compounding effect before beginning Phase 2 Step 16 batch processing.

All Critical and High items in the Ranked Ambiguity List (§5) must be added to the Titus-specific escalation rules extending the baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md Instruction Set, to be produced in the corresponding Phase 1 deliverable for this curriculum.