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 | Grace, Salvation, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 14 | Human theologian | Gospel, Apostleship, Inspiration of Scripture, Lordship of Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Sainthood, Providence, Christian Identity in Christ, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Power of God for Salvation |
| Medium | 16 | Native speaker review | Divine Calling, Adoption, Davidic Covenant, Prayer and Intercession, Evangelism, Church as God’s People |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical and High doctrines cluster where they do
Fulfulde’s 21 Critical-and-High-risk doctrines (the highest proportion of mandatory theologian review in this batch) trace to two compounding sources. First, direct theological contest: deity, sonship, incarnation, resurrection, messianic promise, salvation, and grace each collide with well-known, historically well-articulated Islamic doctrine, given the Fulani Islamic reform tradition’s particular depth. Second, translation-infrastructure risk unique to this language in this pipeline: several of these same doctrines (incarnation, sanctification, justification-adjacent terms) also lack a crystallized Fulfulde rendering at all, meaning even a theologically sound compound must be flagged and confirmed before it can be trusted as consistent across future lessons. Christian Identity in Christ is High specifically because Pulaaku’s strong ethnic-cultural identity system is independent of, and can create real tension with, Christian conversion — a risk category not present in this form for this pipeline’s other languages.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (21 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check cannot verify either dimension of Fulfulde’s compounded risk: whether a doctrinally sound rendering will be read through a well-articulated competing Islamic framework, and whether a given rendering is even an established term at all versus a provisional compound. Native speaker review is sufficient for the 16 Medium-risk doctrines, which include most of the shared ground with Islamic tradition (humanity of Christ, David and Abraham narratives) where the concern is regional dialect confirmation rather than doctrinal contradiction.