Executive Summary: Ezekiel Language Package (English)

Why it matters

Ezekiel is the first non-Pauline, pre-Christian, Hebrew prophetic book processed against this pipeline’s English baseline, and it stresses the framework in a genuinely new way: this curriculum’s core passage (Ezekiel 37:1-14, the Valley of Dry Bones) uses the English word “resurrection” — a term the baseline Romans package already fixes Critically to Christ’s own bodily, historical rising — for a self-interpreted (37:11) national restoration of exiled Israel. This is the sharpest instance of a risk category new to this pipeline: cross-Testament collision, where a learner’s confident, correct knowledge of one curriculum becomes a liability in another. Getting this right is the whole point of Phase 1 for this book.

Key findings

• 28 distinct doctrines were identified and mapped across all 48 chapters (full-book coverage confirmed — no chapter silently omitted); 7 are Critical risk and 15 are High risk, meaning 22 of 28 doctrines (79%) require mandatory human theologian review before Phase 2 content is approved.
• 50 terms were catalogued in the Ezekiel-specific term registry; 12 are Critical risk and 20 are High risk — 32 of 50 terms (64%) require theologian-level scrutiny, a notably higher proportion than the Romans baseline.
• Four cross-Testament collision terms carry the highest confidence-of-misreading in the entire pipeline to date: “son of man” (Ezekiel’s self-deflating ben-adam vs. Jesus’s exalted NT title — opposite theological direction, not merely a different word), “resurrection” (national restoration vs. Christ’s bodily resurrection), “righteousness” (Ezekiel 18’s temporally-reassessed covenant conduct vs. Romans’ forensic imputed status), and “Lord/LORD” (YHWH the covenant name vs. the NT’s kyrios confession).
• Ezekiel also introduces its own internal wordplay risk with no parallel in Romans: ruach (wind/breath/Spirit) is one Hebrew word split across three English words in the core passage itself (37:1,5-6,8-10,14); missing this erases the vision’s central argument that national restoration is a Spirit-work.
• Two full chapters (16, 23) contain deliberately explicit covenant-unfaithfulness imagery requiring mandatory sensitivity review regardless of computed risk tier — a content-handling requirement not present anywhere in the Romans baseline.
• Chapters 40-48 (the new temple vision) and Ezekiel’s live, ongoing significance within Jewish tradition (Shekhinah theology, Merkabah mysticism’s traditional restricted access, Ezekiel 37’s role in modern Jewish national consciousness, and the Temple Mount’s active political sensitivity) require interfaith-transparency framing beyond the baseline’s intra-Christian denominational-transparency rules.

Risks

• Confident misreading, not confusion: cross-Testament collision terms are the pipeline’s highest-severity risk class precisely because learners are certain they already know the word — the failure mode is silent doctrinal contamination between curricula, not a flagged comprehension gap.
• Structural neglect: two Critical doctrines (God’s Presence Departing, God’s Presence Returning) depend on readers connecting chs. 8-11 to ch. 43 as a single deliberate literary/theological arc; either half taught in isolation collapses the book’s central argument. Chapter 48’s capstone line (“The LORD Is There”) is also at high risk of simple omission, since it rarely appears in typical study curricula.
• Denominational and interfaith exposure: three doctrines (Davidic Shepherd-King Promise, the Fall of Pride/Tyre, Gog and Magog, the Vision of the New Temple) touch live, unsettled interpretive disagreement across Christian traditions, and the temple/restoration material additionally touches substantive, actively-held Jewish theological positions that must be represented accurately, not folded into a Christian-only frame.
• Tone risk: chs. 16 and 23’s explicit marriage/harlotry allegory carries dual failure modes — sanitizing away the text’s deliberate shock value, or presenting it gratuitously — either of which undermines the prophetic point being made.

Opportunities

• Ezekiel’s individual-responsibility doctrine (ch. 18) has genuine, positive cross-tradition resonance (Jewish teshuvah, Islamic individual-accountability principle, contemporary Western individualism) that can be leveraged as a teaching asset, provided the accompanying cross-Testament collision with Romans’ righteousness is stated explicitly rather than left implicit.
• The adoption-doctrine-style positive drift documented in the Romans baseline has an analog here: contemporary culture’s broad comfort with “you are responsible for your own choices” language is a genuine on-ramp for ch. 18, not only a risk.
• The book’s own literary structure — judgment matched deliberately with restoration, departure matched deliberately with return — gives this curriculum an unusually strong built-in teaching scaffold once the matched-pairs requirement is enforced consistently in Phase 2 output.

Recommended actions

1. Enforce the mandatory cross-Testament collision disambiguation language (son of man, resurrection, righteousness, Lord/LORD, Spirit) on first substantive use in every document, per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
2. Route all 22 theologian-required doctrines and 32 theologian-required terms through human review before Phase 2 publication; do not downgrade any Critical/High item to native-speaker-only review.
3. Apply mandatory sensitivity review to chapters 16 and 23 regardless of their computed risk tier.
4. Cross-reference chs. 1 / 8-11 / 43 / 48 as a single continuous presence-departing/returning arc in every document touching any one of them, and explicitly retain 48:35 (“The LORD Is There”) as the book’s theological capstone rather than allowing it to be dropped for space or time.
5. Apply interfaith-transparency framing (not only intra-Christian denominational transparency) wherever Jewish theological tradition holds a substantive, still-living alternative reading — the departing/returning Shekhinah, Ezekiel 37’s role in modern Jewish national consciousness, and the Temple Mount’s contemporary sensitivity chief among them.

End of 01_executive_summary.md.