Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude 1:1-25
Scope and Method
Jude is a single chapter of 25 verses; full-book coverage therefore means the entirety of the letter, verse 1 through verse 25, has been reviewed for this analysis — there is no chapter subdivision to omit. The core passage (Jude 1:3-23) supplies the theological center of gravity, but every verse of the letter (the greeting, v.1-2; the doxology, v.24-25) has been checked and is represented below.
This analysis builds directly on 08_core_glossary.md and the extended bible_term_registry.json already produced for this curriculum, and it must never contradict the baseline Romans translation_memory.json. Its purpose is diagnostic: to name where Dogri’s existing vocabulary is thin, where it is dangerously crowded with pre-existing Duggar Hindu religious meaning, and where a transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision must be made deliberately rather than by default. Jude is a short, densely allusive letter built almost entirely out of Old Testament type-narratives and blunt moral denunciation; its translation risk profile is therefore concentrated less in narrative vocabulary and more in (a) a handful of load-bearing abstract nouns repeated across the letter’s structure (τηρέω/keep, πίστις/faith, ἀσέβεια/ungodly) and (b) proper-name type-narratives (Cain, Balaam, Korah, Sodom, Michael) that require background supplied by translator gloss rather than lexical innovation.
Part 1: Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
| Doctrine | Available Dogri Terms | Weaknesses in Available Vocabulary | Recommended Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contending for the Faith Once Delivered | भरोसा (faith, baseline TM); डटकर लड़ना (contend, new); इक्को बारी सदा आस्तै सौंपी गेई (once for all delivered, new) | (1) भरोसा’s baseline sense is personal trust in a specific object, built for Romans’ individual-faith doctrine; Jude 1:3 and 1:20 use πίστις in a corporate, deposit-of-doctrine sense (“the faith,” a body of revealed truth handed down), a semantic extension the baseline never anticipated. Reusing भरोसा without a gloss risks learners hearing “contend for your trust” (an inward disposition) rather than “defend the body of doctrine entrusted to the church.” (2) डटकर लड़ना risks a literal-combat reading in a region where communal religious tension is a live sensitivity. (3) “Once for all delivered” has no everyday Dogri equivalent — transmission of religious teaching in the regional imagination (guru-parampara, oral epic transmission, Sanskrit textual lineages patronized by the Dogra court) is understood as an ongoing, renewable chain, the opposite of Jude’s one-time, closed deposit. | Reuse भरोसा exactly (baseline TM compliance) but require a mandatory translator gloss at every occurrence of “the faith” in Jude distinguishing “trusting” from “the truth once given and to be defended,” flagged Critical (already reflected in bible_term_registry.json). Retain डटकर लड़ना but gloss as effortful defense of teaching, not physical or communal conflict. Retain the full compound इक्को बारी सदा आस्तै सौंपी गेई uncontracted in every occurrence — never shorten to a bare “given” verb, which would silently reopen the door to a renewable-transmission reading. |
| Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers | बेपरमेश्वर / बेपरमेश्वरपन (ungodly, new); न्याय (judgment, new); दण्ड (punishment, new); लुचपन (licentiousness, new); निंदा करना (blaspheme, new); बुरी लालसा (desire, new) | (1) The most natural North Indian word family for “ungodly/irreligious” runs through the धरम root (अधर्मी, अधरमी) — but the baseline package has already flagged धरम as carrying strong Dogra Rajput caste- and lineage-duty connotations; अधर्मी would be heard primarily as “one who neglects social/caste obligation,” not “one without reverence for the true God.” (2) न्याय is a good plain civic-legal term but must be actively defended against a slide toward an impersonal karma-accounting register that Dogri shares with regional Hindi/Punjabi religious vocabulary. (3) Sanskritic near-synonyms for licentiousness exist but sound formal/literary rather than the letter’s own blunt, plain-spoken register. | Build a new परमेश्वर-rooted compound (बेपरमेश्वर/बेपरमेश्वरपन) rather than reaching for the धरम family, deliberately paralleling the baseline’s existing avoidance strategy for “righteousness” and “law.” Use न्याय but require translator notes reinforcing personal, final, one-time divine verdict against karmic-cycle misreading, especially in vv.6, 15. Keep लुचपन and बुरी लालसा at colloquial register rather than Sanskritic register, matching Jude’s own plain moral bluntness. |
| Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom) | स्वर्गदूत (angel, new); प्रधान स्वर्गदूत (archangel, new); शैतान (devil, new); सदा दी अग्ग (eternal fire, new); सदा दा (eternal, new); इस्राएल (baseline TM, gloss-supplied) | (1) “Angel” has two dangerous neighbors in the regional lexicon: देवता (a Hindu deity/demigod, which would promote a fallen angel to divine status) and फरिश्ता (the Islamic-register loanword, which would misplace the term’s religious register for this readership). (2) “Eternal fire” collides directly with नर्क, which in the shared North Indian cosmological imagination names a temporary hell from which a soul is eventually released once its karma is exhausted — the exact opposite of πῦρ αἰώνιον’s permanence. (3) Jude 1:5 names no proper noun (“a people,” λαός); Dogri readers will not automatically supply “Israel” as the referent without help. | Retain स्वर्गदूत/प्रधान स्वर्गदूत/शैतान as already fixed in the term registry; require a standing translator note wherever नर्क might be reached for by a reviewer, explicitly forbidding it as a gloss for सदा दी अग्ग. Supply इस्राएल as an explicit bracketed or footnoted gloss at v.5 rather than leaving “a people” unspecified, consistent with the registry’s existing “israel_implied” entry. |
| Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering | दया / दया करनी (mercy, new); डोलणे वाले (wavering, new); खींच के कड्ढना (snatch from fire, new); डर (fear, new) | (1) दया shares its root with the baseline’s grace-compound (बिना कमाई दित्ती दया) — a useful doctrinal echo, but it must not be allowed to drift toward the mannat/boon-granting register the baseline already fences off for grace and salvation (mercy sought/granted in exchange for a vow at Vaishno Devi). (2) डोलणे वाले is an everyday physical-instability verb with no existing theological currency; this is a genuine vocabulary gap, not a crowded-neighborhood risk — there is no settled Dogri Christian term for “one wavering in belief but recoverable.” (3) डर (fear) in v.23 is a fine-grained pastoral nuance (guarding against contamination while rescuing) easily flattened into simple “being afraid,” losing Jude’s careful moral-hygiene sense. | Fill the genuine vocabulary gap with डोलणे वाले precisely because its ordinariness (a common word for physical unsteadiness, e.g. a wobbling load or an unsteady walker) avoids importing any technical philosophical or devotional register — this is a deliberate choice to leave the term theologically unmarked so it reads as a recoverable condition, not settled apostasy. Require a translator note on दया at every Jude occurrence reiterating the non-transactional baseline fence already established for grace. Gloss डर with the phrase “with caution against being pulled into the same sin,” not bare “fear.” |
| Kept by God and Presented Blameless | रक्खना / सुरक्षित रक्खना (keep/preserve, new — Critical); रक्षा करना (guard, new); निरदोष (blameless, new); खड़ा करना (present, new) | (1) τηρέω is the single most theologically load-bearing repeated verb in the letter (vv.1, 6, 13, 21), appearing in four different applications (God keeping believers; angels failing to keep their position; gloom “kept” for wandering stars; believers commanded to keep themselves in God’s love) — a single Dogri verb must carry all four without drifting into inconsistency. (2) The most immediate cultural risk is the mannat (vow) economy: “being kept safe” is precisely the kind of request-and-response transaction sought at Vaishno Devi (a safe pilgrimage, a safe delivery, a safe journey granted in exchange for a vow). Jude’s keeping is unconditional covenant faithfulness, the opposite polarity. (3) निरदोष risks being heard as a self-achieved moral record (a person with “no blemish on their name,” which in Dogra Rajput honor culture would map onto an unblemished lineage/reputation, izzat) rather than a conferred, gifted status. | Use रक्खना / सुरक्षित रक्खना consistently across all four Jude occurrences of τηρέω and require Critical-tier human theologian review at each; attach a standing translator note distinguishing God’s keeping from mannat-style negotiated protection. Gloss निरदोष explicitly as a status given by God’s finishing work, drawing the parallel already noted in the term registry to the baseline’s Critical justification doctrine (धर्मी ठहराए जाना) — conferred, not earned, and not equivalent to an unblemished-honor/izzat record. |
| Doxology and God’s Preserving Power | उद्धारकर्ता (Savior, new); महानता (majesty, new); बल (dominion/might, new); अधिकार (authority, new); हर समें / सदा-सदा (age/eternity, new); महिमा (glory, baseline TM) | (1) αἰών is this doxology’s single highest-risk term: जुग/युग, the natural North Indian word for “age/era,” is inseparable in the regional religious imagination from the Hindu cyclical cosmology of four descending yugas and, more specifically, from the doctrine of Vishnu’s avatars appearing across successive yugas — already the single highest-salience collision risk identified in the baseline for incarnation/avatar theology, now recurring in Jude’s closing formula (“before all time, and now, and unto all the ages”). (2) बल is a safe choice for κράτος, but its Sanskritic near-neighbor पराक्रम (heroic valor/battlefield prowess) sits close by in register and would reframe divine dominion as a warrior-king’s martial glory, resonant with — but wrongly assimilated to — Dogra Rajput warrior-heroism culture. (3) उद्धारकर्ता is a safe compound on the already-Critical उद्धार root, but a careless translator could reach for मुक्तिदाता (a liberator from samsara), reopening the baseline’s central मुक्ति/उद्धार fence at the letter’s climactic final verse. | Never render αἰών with जुग/युग; use only the descriptive, non-technical हर समें / सदा-सदा formula, flagged Critical and requiring theologian review at every occurrence (v.25 is the letter’s final line and its rendering will anchor how the whole doxology is remembered). Retain बल over पराक्रम. Retain उद्धारकर्ता over मुक्तिदाता, explicitly forbidding the latter in the forbidden-substitution list (see Part 4 below). |
Part 2: Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
Jude’s translation risk falls into two structurally different problems, which require different remediation strategies and must not be treated as the same kind of gap.
2a. Genuine Missing Vocabulary (no existing Dogri term at all — requires coinage/compounding)
These concepts have no settled Dogri lexical item, Christian or otherwise, and a new compound or descriptive phrase must be built from existing morphology rather than borrowed wholesale from Hindi Christian usage (per the baseline’s standing caution against Hindi-gravity):
- “Once for all delivered” (ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ, v.3) — no everyday Dogri phrase captures a closed, unrepeatable, one-directional transmission of a truth-deposit; regional transmission models (oral epic tradition, guru-parampara, Sanskrit textual lineages under Dogra court patronage) are all renewable/ongoing by cultural default. Coined compound: इक्को बारी सदा आस्तै सौंपी गेई.
- δεσπότης distinct from κύριος (v.4) — Dogri has no second word for “absolute master/owner” that is distinct in register from प्रभु yet avoids स्वामी’s guru-honorific overtone. Coined term: हाकम (a plain civic/administrative “master, ruler” word, deliberately non-devotional in register).
- ψυχικός (“soulish,” v.19) — no Dogri term names “governed by merely natural, unregenerate life” without reaching for either आत्मा (reserved for the Holy Spirit) or जीव (the Hindu/Jain karmic individual-soul concept). Coined descriptive phrase: सांसारिक सुभाऽ वाले (“of worldly disposition/nature”).
- “Wavering” as a recoverable doctrinal category (διακρίνομαι, v.22) — no existing Dogri theological term names a person who doubts but remains within reach of mercy, as opposed to a settled apostate. Solution: repurpose the everyday physical-instability verb डोलणे वाले precisely because it carries no prior theological freight.
- σπιλάδες (v.12) — genuinely ambiguous even in the Greek (submerged reef vs. stain/blemish); Dogri likewise has no single term spanning both senses. Solution: primary rendering छुपे खतरे (hidden dangers, favoring the nautical sense given the surrounding storm/wave imagery of vv.12-13), with दाग़ (stains) flagged as an alternate for reviewer selection rather than silently resolved.
2b. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (vocabulary exists, but is already occupied by Duggar Hindu religious meaning and must be actively fenced)
These are not gaps but the opposite problem: the “obvious,” fluent-sounding word is already loaded with a specific, locally salient non-Christian meaning, and reaching for it by default is the primary risk this analysis exists to prevent.
| Dogri/Hindi term (to avoid or fence) | Its existing local religious meaning | Jude concept it would wrongly attract | Fence applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| धरम / अधर्मी / अधरमी | Dogra Rajput caste- and lineage-bound social/ritual duty; izzat-linked honor obligation | ungodly / ungodliness (vv.4, 15, 18) | New परमेश्वर-rooted compound बेपरमेश्वर/बेपरमेश्वरपन built instead; धरम family never used |
| नर्क | A temporary hell within the cycle of samsara, exitable once karma is exhausted | eternal fire (v.7) | सदा दी अग्ग used for the fire itself; नर्क never used as its equivalent |
| जुग / युग | Cyclical cosmological ages; Vishnu’s avatars appearing across successive yugas | age/eternity (αἰών, v.25) | Descriptive हर समें / सदा-सदा used exclusively; जुग/युग forbidden |
| अनन्त | Vedantic eternal/unchanging ātman; cyclical cosmic time | eternal (αἰώνιος, vv.6, 7, 13, 21) | Plain, non-Sanskritic सदा दा used exclusively |
| शक्ति | Shakta goddess-power, strongly localized at Bahu Fort’s Kali shrine and Vaishno Devi | (background risk for any dominion/might/authority language in the doxology cluster, vv.24-25, even though κράτος itself is not literally “shakti”) | बल used for κράτος; शक्ति excluded from the entire doxology cluster as a standing rule, extending the baseline’s existing shक्ति fence for Holy Spirit/Power of God into this new context |
| मुक्ति / मुक्तिदाता | Liberation from the rebirth cycle (samsara); a liberator-figure in that framework | salvation (v.3) / Savior (v.25) | उद्धार (baseline TM) and उद्धारकर्ता (new compound on the same root) used exclusively; मुक्ति/मुक्तिदाता forbidden |
| स्वामी | Honorific for a Hindu ascetic teacher/guru figure (e.g., “Swami-ji”) | δεσπότης, Sovereign Master (v.4) | हाकम coined instead; स्वामी forbidden |
| मन्नत-आधारित रक्षा (vow-based protection logic) | The Vaishno Devi mannat economy: safety/protection secured through a pledged vow or offering | keep/preserve (τηρέω, vv.1, 6, 13, 21) | रक्खना/सुरक्षित रक्खना used with mandatory translator note distinguishing unconditional divine keeping from negotiated vow-protection |
| इज़्ज़त-आधारित निरदोषता (honor/reputation-based blamelessness) | Dogra Rajput lineage-honor culture: an unblemished name/reputation maintained through one’s own conduct and family standing | blameless (ἄμωμος, v.24) | निरदोष glossed explicitly as a status conferred by God’s finishing work, paralleling the baseline’s conferred-not-achieved justification doctrine |
| भक्ति-दास सम्बन्ध (bhakti devotee-guru “dāsa” self-designation) | A devotee’s self-identification as “dās” (slave/servant) before a deity or guru in North Indian devotional tradition | servant/bondservant (δοῦλος, v.1) | दास retained (established regional Christian usage) but flagged for a standing translator note: total ownership by Christ, not a guru-bhakti devotional relationship — inherited vocabulary refilled with distinct content, not equated |
| पराक्रम | Heroic martial valor/battlefield prowess, resonant with Dogra Rajput warrior-heroism epics | dominion/might (κράτος, v.25) | बल used instead; पराक्रम forbidden in the doxology cluster |
Part 3: Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
Jude is unusually dense with proper names carrying Old Testament type-narratives (Cain, Balaam, Korah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Michael, Moses, Enoch) alongside a small number of highly compressed theological compounds. The decision rule applied throughout this curriculum:
Transliterate proper names and terms with an already-settled regional Bible-translation form, where no doctrinal content is carried by the sound of the word itself. Paraphrase (compound/descriptive phrase) theological concepts where a single transliterated or borrowed word would either (a) import an unwanted local religious association or (b) fail to carry the concept’s full doctrinal weight.
| Term | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Enoch, Cain, Balaam, Korah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Michael, Moses, Jude, James | Transliterate (हनोक, कैन, बलआम, कोरह, सदोम ते अमोरा, मीकाईल, मूसा, यूदा, याकूब) | Proper names carry no independent doctrinal risk in themselves; the risk lies entirely in the narrative background (what each figure represents), which must be supplied by translator/teacher gloss, not solved by word choice. Confirm all forms against the BSI Dogri Bible before finalizing. |
| Jesus, Christ, David, Israel | Transliterate (यीशु, मसीह, दाऊद, इस्राएल) | Already fixed in baseline TM; reused exactly per hard rule. |
| Abba (n/a — not present in Jude) | — | Not applicable; noted only to confirm no conflicting instruction is introduced for this curriculum. |
| δεσπότης (Sovereign/Master, v.4) | Paraphrase — हाकम, a plain civic-register word | A transliteration is not available in Greek-loanword form in Dogri; a borrowed Hindi devotional honorific (स्वामी) or dynastic title (महाराजा, already forbidden by baseline) would each import unwanted associations. A plain descriptive noun is required. |
| ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ (once for all delivered, v.3) | Paraphrase — full compound इक्को बारी सदा आस्तै सौंपी गेई, never abbreviated | No single word carries “unrepeatable, one-directional, completed transmission” in Dogri; compression to a shorter phrase would reopen a renewable-transmission reading. |
| ἀσέβεια / ἀσεβής (ungodly/ungodliness) | Paraphrase — new परमेश्वर-rooted compound, not a धरम-rooted or Sanskrit-borrowed single word | See Part 2b; a single existing word would either be too weak (general “irreligious”) or collide with caste/lineage-duty connotations. |
| αἰώνιος / αἰών (eternal / age) | Paraphrase — descriptive सदा दा / हर समें / सदा-सदा, never Sanskritic अनन्त or जुग/युग | See Part 2b; this is the doxology’s single highest collision risk and must never be resolved by transliteration or by reaching for the nearest fluent Sanskritic word. |
| Σωτήρ (Savior, v.25) | Paraphrase-as-compound — उद्धारकर्ता, built on the already-fixed baseline root उद्धार, not transliterated from Greek and not मुक्तिदाता | Preserves doctrinal continuity with the baseline’s Critical salvation term rather than introducing an unrelated new word. |
| τηρέω (keep/preserve) | Paraphrase — रक्खना / सुरक्षित रक्खना | An ordinary Dogri verb, deliberately chosen over any term with existing devotional-transactional overtones (see mannat fence, Part 2b). |
| μυριάς (myriads, v.14) | Idiomatic paraphrase — लाखां (“lakhs”), not a literal “ten-thousands” | The Indian large-number idiom “lakh” communicates “an immense multitude” far more naturally than a literal calque, without importing any doctrinal risk. |
| ἀγάπη (technical) — “love feast,” v.12 | Paraphrase with mandatory gloss — प्यार दियां दावतां, glossed as the early church’s shared fellowship meal | Left unglossed, this risks conflation with a prasad-style temple offering-feast; the paraphrase alone does not fully fence the risk, so a standing translator note is required in addition. |
General rule for Phase 2: wherever a term in this letter has both a plausible transliteration from Greek/Hebrew/Sanskrit and a plausible native-Dogri descriptive paraphrase, and the transliteration would land closer to an existing Hindu devotional register (स्वामी, मुक्ति, जुग, नर्क, शक्ति), the native-Dogri descriptive paraphrase must be used, consistent with the baseline’s standing instruction to resist Hindi/Sanskrit gravitational pull.
Part 4: Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities
Ranked by combined doctrinal weight and cultural-collision salience, for Phase 2 escalation-routing priority.
-
αἰών / αἰώνιος — “eternal/age” vs. जुग-युग cyclical cosmology (vv.6,7,13,21,25). Highest-ranked because it recurs across nearly every doctrine in this curriculum (judgment, OT types, doxology) and because its most fluent-sounding native word (जुग/युग) collides with the single most locally prestigious religious framework in the Duggar region — the Vishnu-avatar-per-yuga cosmology anchored at Raghunath Mandir. A single lapse here would quietly reframe the whole letter’s timeline as cyclical rather than linear-historical. Escalation: Human theologian review, every occurrence.
-
πίστις — “the faith” as doctrinal deposit vs. भरोसा as personal trust (vv.3, 20). This is the letter’s own thesis term (“contend for the faith once delivered”); collapsing the deposit-of-truth sense into the baseline’s personal-trust sense would silently convert Jude’s central exhortation into something closer to “defend your own inner confidence,” losing the corporate, doctrinal-content dimension entirely. Escalation: Human theologian review, every occurrence; mandatory translator gloss.
-
ἀσέβεια/ἀσεβής — “ungodly” vs. धरम-rooted vocabulary (vv.4,15,18). The natural fluent word in this family (अधर्मी) would be heard as a caste/lineage-duty failure specific to Dogra Rajput social structure, not irreverence toward the true God — a serious category error given how central lineage-honor (izzat) already is to this readership’s social imagination. Escalation: Human theologian review, every occurrence.
-
τηρέω — “keep/preserve” vs. mannat vow-protection logic (vv.1, 6, 13, 21). Because this verb structures the letter’s entire theological arc (God keeps believers; angels failed to keep their post; believers are told to keep themselves), a drift toward transactional “protection-for-devotion” framing would undermine the doctrine of unconditional divine faithfulness at four separate load points in a single short letter. Escalation: Human theologian review, every occurrence.
-
πῦρ αἰώνιον — “eternal fire” vs. नर्क’s exitable-hell framework (v.7). A single wrong lexical choice at this single verse would import a full cosmological system (temporary hell, karma exhaustion, eventual release) into the letter’s central warning-type passage. Escalation: Human theologian review.
-
δεσπότης — “Sovereign Master” vs. स्वामी guru-honorific (v.4). Elevated because it appears in the same verse as, and is deliberately paired with, κύριος to intensify the very confession the false teachers are said to deny — getting this wrong weakens the verse’s rhetorical and doctrinal force simultaneously. Escalation: Human theologian review.
-
ψυχικός — “worldly/soulish” vs. आत्मा/जीव collision (v.19). A single verse, but doctrinally load-bearing: it is the letter’s own explicit criterion for identifying who lacks the Spirit, and Dogri’s two most obvious candidate words are both already reserved (आत्मा for the Holy Spirit) or philosophically loaded (जीव for the karmic soul). Escalation: Human theologian review.
-
κράτος — “dominion/might” vs. पराक्रम warrior-valor register (v.25). Medium-high because it sits in the letter’s climactic final doxology, where any drift toward Dogra Rajput martial-heroism connotation would recast divine sovereignty as a warrior-king’s earned battlefield glory rather than transcendent, uncontested might. Escalation: Native speaker review; theologian spot-check given doxology’s cross-document consistency requirement.
-
σπιλάδες — genuinely ambiguous nautical-reef/stain sense (v.12). Ranked lower because the ambiguity exists in the source text itself (not a translation error risk) and either resolution preserves the passage’s basic critical force, but it still requires deliberate reviewer selection rather than default drift. Escalation: Native speaker review, flagged as source-genuinely-ambiguous.
-
αἰσχύνη — “shame” engaging izzat honor-culture categories (v.13) and δοῦλος — “servant/bondservant” overlapping bhakti-devotee self-designation (v.1). Ranked together at lowest-of-high-priority because both terms are semantically stable (their Dogri renderings are not in serious doubt) but both directly engage powerful, emotionally loaded local cultural categories (honor/shame; devotee-guru self-abasement) that could color a reader’s reception of the text even where the lexical choice itself is correct. Escalation: Native speaker review with cultural-sensitivity annotation.
Summary for Phase 2 Handoff
This analysis confirms that Jude’s translation risk is concentrated in (a) a small cluster of doctrinally load-bearing repeated terms (τηρέω, πίστις, ἀσέβεια, αἰών/αἰώνιος) that recur across multiple verses and therefore multiply any single wrong decision, and (b) a set of one-time but high-collision terms (δεσπότης, πῦρ αἰώνιον, ψυχικός, Σωτήρ) concentrated in the letter’s most doctrinally dense verses (4, 7, 19, 25). No term in this letter should be resolved by reaching for the nearest fluent Hindi/Sanskrit word without first checking it against the crowded-neighborhood table in Part 2b above. All Critical- and High-risk items identified here are reflected in bible_term_registry.json and must be escalated per the routing rules already established in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.