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 | 3 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Effectual Calling |
| High | 12 | Human theologian | Grace, Salvation, Sainthood, Davidic Covenant, Universal Human Accountability, Church as God’s People |
| Medium | 19 | Native speaker review | Divine Calling, Faith, Adoption, Sanctification, Providence |
| Low | 6 | Automated review only | Gospel, Apostleship, Humanity of Christ, Peace with God, Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification |
Why the risk profile differs from Hindi
Hindi’s Critical/High tier clusters around doctrines with a ready-made syncretistic word from an entirely different religious framework (Hinduism). Dutch’s single Critical doctrine, Effectual Calling, is Critical for a different reason entirely: it is the specific doctrine the Synod of Dordrecht was convened to settle, making it uniquely load-bearing for Dutch Reformed identity in a way with no real parallel among the other five languages in this batch. Dutch’s High-risk tier otherwise clusters around confessional-historical weight (Davidic Covenant’s federal theology, Grace’s Dort-era stakes) and acute secular semantic drift (Universal Human Accountability’s dependence on “zonde” retaining its doctrinal force).
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (15 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because only a theologically and historically informed reviewer can judge whether a fluent Dutch rendering has preserved the Reformed (rather than Arminian-compatible) reading of election, or caught a secularized “zonde”/“roeping” drift. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is register clarity rather than doctrinal contradiction.