Linguistic Gap Analysis: Hiob (Job) — German Language Package

Curriculum: Hiob (Job) Language pair: English–German Core passage: Hiob 19,23-27 Doctrines covered: The Problem of Suffering and Divine Justice · The Sovereignty and Incomprehensibility of God · Retribution Theology Challenged · Faith and Integrity amid Suffering · The Mediator/Redeemer Hope · Repentance and Restoration · Satan’s Limited Power under God’s Sovereignty Depends on / extends: Romans-baseline translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json; Hiob analysis/08_core_glossary.md and Hiob assets/bible_term_registry.json Status: Phase 1, Step 8 deliverable. Feeds Step 9 (doctrine risk registry) and Phase 2 AI translation requirements.

---

1. Purpose and Method

This analysis identifies where standard German theological vocabulary is adequate, where it is missing, and where it is crowded by competing senses that will bleed into a Bible-translation reader’s understanding unless deliberately fenced. It is organized around the seven doctrines named in the curriculum parameters, then cuts back across doctrines to name book-wide lexical gaps, semantic-neighborhood collisions, transliteration-vs-paraphrase calls, and a final risk-ranked list for Phase 2 reviewer scheduling.

Method: for each doctrine, the available German candidate terms already in use (Luther 2017, Einheitsübersetzung 2016, and this curriculum’s own proposed glossary) are weighed against (a) their weaknesses as false friends or doctrinally leaky renderings, and (b) German-specific cultural/historical collision risk, following the same discipline the Romans baseline applied to “Heil,” “Freiheit,” and “Kirche.”

---

2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

2.1 The Problem of Suffering and Divine Justice

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Leiden (suffering, general)	Umbrella word for several distinct Hebrew terms (ra’ah, nega, amal); risk of colloquial trivialization (“das Leiden des Alltags”) flattening the book’s weight, parallel to the baseline’s caution on “Sünde.”	Use as the stable doctrinal-category word; anchor every occurrence to a specific textual referent (Hiob’s boils, bereavement, social contempt) rather than letting it float abstractly.
Unrecht (“Gott hat mir Unrecht getan,” 19:6)	Concrete legal-wrong sense; correctly captures avat without theological softening.	Retain as established (see NEW glossary #21).
Theodizee	German-coined term (Leibniz, 1710, Essais de Théodicée), fully naturalized in German philosophical and theological discourse — but for that very reason carries an enormous, specifically German post-Holocaust theological weight (Adorno’s “Nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht zu schreiben ist barbarisch”-adjacent discourse; Moltmann’s Der gekreuzigte Gott, already flagged in the baseline at Mark 15:34). Using “Theodizee” casually risks either (a) importing academic distance the poetic dialogues do not have, or (b) unintentionally invoking Holocaust-theology discourse where the book’s own ancient Near Eastern setting is the correct frame.	Reserve “Theodizee” for teacher’s/commentary material only, with an explicit note on its Leibniz origin and its later post-Holocaust German theological freight; never insert into the translated Hiob text itself.
Gerechtigkeit Gottes	Already Critical-risk from the Romans baseline (Luther’s Turmerlebnis); Hiob raises the identical question from the opposite direction (25:4, “Wie kann ein Mensch gerecht sein vor Gott?”) — productive but must not be flattened into a single “answer” the book itself does not give.	Preserve the open, unresolved rhetorical force; do not supply a resolution the Hebrew text does not supply.

2.2 The Sovereignty and Incomprehensibility of God

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
der Allmächtige (Shaddai)	Stable, uncontested — see Hiob glossary #8.	Retain as established.
Souveränität Gottes	Modern academic-theological loanword; carries live German political-theology baggage via Carl Schmitt’s Politische Theologie (1922) and its association with Schmitt’s own Nazi-era jurisprudence — a genuine collision risk for educated German readers encountering “Souveränität” in a religious-instructional context.	Avoid in devotional/lesson-text register; if used in teacher’s commentary, explicitly distinguish from Schmitt’s contested political usage. Prefer “Gottes Macht,” “Gottes Herrschaft,” or simply “der Allmächtige.”
Vorsehung	Already flagged High risk in the Romans baseline for its Enlightenment/deist (Kantian) impersonal-order overtone. Hiob’s narrative frame (chs. 1-2, 38-42) makes this risk more acute than in Romans 8:28, because the text explicitly narrates a heavenly-court permission scene that a deist reading would erase entirely.	Use sparingly; when used, anchor explicitly to the narrative frame’s personal, courtroom-permission structure, never to an impersonal governing order.
unerforschlich	Precise, stable (see glossary #11); note the irony that Zophar states it truly but applies it accusingly.	Retain; flag for teaching the double use (true principle, wrongly weaponized by Zophar; later vindicated by God).
Schicksal (fate)	NOT currently proposed for use, but a real drift-risk translators may reach for informally to render the sense of “what befalls” Hiob.	Explicitly forbidden: “Schicksal” implies an impersonal, non-agential force incompatible with the narrative frame’s explicit divine agency and permission.

2.3 Retribution Theology Challenged

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Vergeltung / Vergeltungslehre	Serious German-specific collision: “Vergeltung” is the root of “Vergeltungswaffe” (the official Nazi-era designation for the V-1/V-2 rockets, “V” = Vergeltung), and “Vergeltungsschlag” remains standard modern German for a military reprisal strike. Using “Vergeltungslehre” unglossed for the friends’ theology risks an unintended and jarring 20th-century-warfare association for German readers.	If used at all, gloss immediately and explicitly (“die Lehre vom Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang,” see below) rather than leaving “Vergeltung” to stand alone; prefer descriptive paraphrase in lesson-level text.
Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang	The standard German Old Testament scholarship term (coined by Klaus Koch, 1955) for “deed-consequence connection” — precise and free of the Vergeltung collision, but academic-register jargon inaccessible to a general lesson audience without a gloss.	Use in teacher’s/commentary material with a plain-language gloss (“die Vorstellung: gutes Tun bringt gutes Ergehen, böses Tun bringt Unglück”); do not require of lesson-level lay text.
Wohlstand der Frevler (prosperity of the wicked, 21:7-16)	No fixed single term exists (see glossary #23); risk is not lexical but framing — treating Hiob’s observation as an error to be corrected rather than the book’s own unrebutted challenge.	Present as a standing, valid biblical observation; do not supply a resolution God’s speeches themselves do not supply.

2.4 Faith and Integrity amid Suffering

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Rechtschaffenheit / Lauterkeit	Already established (glossary #2); correctly avoids “vollkommen“‘s sinless-perfection collision with Romans 3:23.	Retain as established.
”Hiobsgeduld” (idiom: “the patience of Job”)	A live, still-current German idiom (ultimately from James 5:11 via Luther), but a genuine false-friend risk against the book’s own content: Hiob is not passively, silently patient — he protests loudly, accuses God of injustice (19:6), and demands a hearing. The popular idiom flattens the character the book actually presents.	Must be explicitly corrected in teaching material: Hiob’s real virtue is perseverant, protesting faithfulness, not placid silence; the idiom should be named and gently corrected, not relied upon as an entry point.
Integrität	Modern loanword, now dominant in corporate/clinical registers (“Datenintegrität,” “berufliche Integrität”); risks an anachronistic, secular-professional flavor.	Avoid as the primary rendering; may appear in commentary as a cross-linguistic gloss, but “Rechtschaffenheit/Lauterkeit” remains primary.
Glaube / vertrauen (13:15)	REUSED baseline term; genuine textual (qere/ketiv) ambiguity between “I will trust him” and “I will not trust him.”	Flag explicitly for reviewer; do not silently resolve the textual variant.

2.5 The Mediator/Redeemer Hope

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Mittler / Schiedsrichter (9:33, mokiach)	“Mittler” collides productively but riskily with the NT “mediator” title (1 Timothy 2:5) already present in the baseline’s doctrinal notes.	Use as an OT legal-arbitration term only within the Hiob text; the NT typological echo belongs in commentary, never imported into the translated verse itself.
Zeuge (16:19, ed)	Stable, low collision risk.	Retain; teach in explicit sequence with mokiach and go’el (9:33 → 16:19 → 19:25).
Erlöser (19:25, go’el)	Established German Bible rendering (Luther, Einheitsübersetzung both use “Erlöser”); but risks being flattened to a generic “Helfer” on one side, or over-Christianized into an explicit NT identification on the other. A further, subtler risk: “Heiland,” a devotional/hymnic German word for “Savior” heavily coded by Christmas-carol usage (“Heiland der Welt,” “O du fröhliche”) sits in the same semantic neighborhood and could tempt a translator toward a more explicitly Christological substitution than the Hebrew text itself warrants.	Use “Erlöser” exactly as established; explicitly forbid substitution with “Heiland,” which imports an NT-liturgical devotional register the OT legal-family kinsman-redeemer concept does not itself carry.
”in meinem Fleisch” (19:26, min preposition)	Centuries-contested exegetical crux (embodied vs. disembodied vision of God); German “in” resolves toward embodiment, which matches Luther’s historic choice and the baseline’s concrete-flesh discipline, but does not itself resolve the underlying Hebrew ambiguity.	Retain “in meinem Fleisch”; mandatory transparent commentary flagging the unresolved scholarly debate, parallel to the baseline’s no_one_knows_the_hour treatment.
”zuletzt” (acharon)	Genuine Hebrew ambiguity between plain sequential “eventually” and a more ultimate/eschatological sense; German “zuletzt” leans toward the plain sequential sense, while “am Jüngsten Tag” would over-resolve toward a developed eschatological doctrine not warranted by the Hebrew.	Use “zuletzt”; flag the eschatological question explicitly in commentary rather than resolving it lexically.
Auferstehung (conceptual anticipation only)	No Hebrew technical noun exists in 14:14 or 19:25-27 equivalent to NT anastasis.	NEVER insert “Auferstehung” into the translated Hiob text; reserve strictly for teaching commentary connecting Hiob’s hope to the fuller NT doctrine.

2.6 Repentance and Restoration

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Buße	Already High risk in the Romans baseline (Reformation confessional-sacramental dispute, Matthew 3:2/8); an imperfect lexical match to Hiob’s nacham (42:6), a different Hebrew root than the more common teshuvah/shuv repentance vocabulary.	Use ONLY for cross-referencing to the broader biblical repentance category, with mandatory gloss; never substitute directly into 42:6’s translation.
”Ich widerrufe und bereue in Staub und Asche” (42:6)	Correctly captures nacham’s sense of retraction/relenting rather than confession of a specific hidden sin.	Retain as established (glossary #35); mandatory theologian framing that this is NOT an admission the friends were right — God vindicates Hiob’s speech in 42:7-8.
Wiederherstellung / “das Geschick wenden” (42:10)	Risk is not lexical but theological framing: could be read as Hiob’s reward for correctly repenting (prosperity-gospel-adjacent misreading), rather than sheer grace following vindication.	Present explicitly as unearned restoration, parallel in caution-weight to the baseline’s working_out_salvation Werkgerechtigkeit guard.
Reue (general remorse/regret)	Broader, more secular-register word than nacham; usable in general commentary but not a precise substitute for the specific 42:6 confession.	Acceptable in general discussion of Hiob’s emotional state; not a substitute for the fixed 42:6 rendering.

2.7 Satan’s Limited Power under God’s Sovereignty

Available German terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
der Satan	Established (glossary #3); correctly preserves the definite-article “the Accuser” titled-office sense rather than a proper name.	Retain exactly.
der Teufel	The single highest German-cultural-collision risk in this book. “Teufel” activates the full weight of German Reformation folklore (Luther’s inkwell-throwing legend at the Wartburg), medieval exorcism tradition, and — decisively for educated readers — Goethe’s Mephistopheles in Faust, an autonomous, witty, self-initiating tempter who makes his own wager with Faust independent of any divine court. This is categorically unlike ha-satan’s subordinate, permission-bound courtroom role (1:12; 2:6).	NEVER use “der Teufel” as the primary rendering; reserve strictly for a contrastive teaching note explicitly distinguishing the biblical ha-satan from Goethe’s Mephistopheles.
der Ankläger (“the accuser/prosecutor”)	A semantically precise alternative — correctly foregrounds the legal-court, prosecutorial-office sense — but is not the established German Bible-translation convention (Luther and Einheitsübersetzung both use “der Satan”).	Useful as a glossing aid in commentary (“der Satan, wörtlich ‘der Ankläger’”), not as a text substitution.
die Söhne Gottes / die Gottessöhne (1:6; 2:1; 38:7)	Risk is not the German rendering itself but its visual/grammatical proximity to the baseline’s Critical singular “Sohn Gottes” (Christ’s unique eternal Sonship).	Keep plural marking unmistakable in every occurrence; consider “die himmlischen Wesen” as an disambiguating gloss in lesson material where confusion risk is highest.

---

3. Missing Vocabulary (Lexical Gaps)

German has no single lexical item that:

1. Captures “go’el” (kinsman-redeemer) with its specific family-law content (obligation to redeem property, avenge blood, ransom a relative — cf. Ruth 4; Leviticus 25:25). “Erlöser” carries the redeeming sense but drops the kinship-obligation legal frame entirely; this must be supplied by explicit teaching, not vocabulary.
2. Distinguishes mishpat from tsedaqah the way Hebrew does. German legal-theological vocabulary does not spontaneously separate “justice as legal verdict/process” from “justice as righteous relational standing” — “Recht” and “Gerechtigkeit” are cognate-adjacent enough in ordinary German usage that the book’s central question (“Verkehrt Gott das Recht?”, 8:3) requires deliberate teaching to keep the two categories apart, since the language does not do this work automatically.
3. Preserves the deliberate ambiguity of acharon (“zuletzt”) between plain sequence and eschatological finality — any single German word will resolve toward one pole; the ambiguity must be supplied by commentary, not recoverable from the word alone.
4. Has a lay-register equivalent to “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang” — German OT scholarship solved this gap academically (Koch, 1955) but no popular equivalent exists; a genuine terminology gap between scholarly and lesson-level registers that Phase 2 lesson-writers must bridge deliberately.
5. Distinguishes Hiob’s nacham (relent/retract) from the standard OT repentance-vocabulary cluster (teshuvah/shuv) the way Hebrew’s two distinct roots do. “Buße,” “Reue,” and “Umkehr” all cluster around confession-of-sin senses that risk smuggling back exactly the retribution-theology conclusion (Hiob confessing a sin that caused his suffering) the book’s ending explicitly rejects (42:7-8).
6. Renders the emotional-organ idiom of 19:27 (“my kidneys are consumed within my bosom”) without either false clinical literalism (“meine Nieren”) or emotional flattening; German substitutes the heart (“es verzehrt sich mein Herz in meiner Brust”), an accepted idiom-substitution, but this is a supplied equivalence, not a lexical gap closed by German vocabulary itself.

---

4. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Neighborhood	Competing senses in the same German lexical space	Fencing required
Tröster	Job’s fallible human comforters (2:11; 6:14; 16:2; 21:34; 29:25) vs. “der Tröster” = the Holy Spirit/Paraclete (already High risk in the baseline, John 14-16)	Explicit teaching contrast at every occurrence: Hiob’s “Tröster” are theologically mistaken friends, categorically distinct from the divine Comforter title.
Satan / Teufel / Dämon / Mephistopheles	ha-satan’s subordinate court-office role vs. Reformation-folklore Teufel vs. Gospel exorcism-narrative “Dämon” vs. Goethe’s autonomous literary tempter	Keep “der Satan” isolated from all three neighbors in devotional text; use commentary to explicitly map and distinguish all four.
Gerechtigkeit / Recht	tsedaqah (relational righteous standing, already Critical in the baseline) vs. mishpat (legal verdict/process)	Consistent, disciplined separate rendering (“Gerechtigkeit” / “Recht”) maintained across every occurrence in Hiob; do not let either bleed into the other’s territory even when English “justice”/“righteousness” would tolerate overlap.
Leiden and its assumed cause	German folk-theological intuition (like most cultures’) still popularly equates suffering with deserved punishment — the very retribution theology the book challenges. The language itself supplies no separate vocabulary register for “innocent suffering” vs. “guilty suffering”; both are simply “Leiden.”	The distinction must be supplied entirely through context and explicit doctrinal exposition, never assumed to be carried by word choice alone.
Vorsehung / Schicksal / Zufall	Personal, purposive divine governance vs. impersonal fate vs. mere chance	Already flagged High-risk in the Romans baseline; acute in Hiob because the narrative frame explicitly narrates a personal permission-granting scene that either “Schicksal” or “Zufall” would silently erase.
Erlöser / Retter / Heiland	go’el (kinsman-redeemer, OT legal-family concept) vs. general “Retter” (rescuer) vs. “Heiland” (heavily NT-liturgical/Christmas-carol-coded Savior title)	“Erlöser” only; “Heiland” explicitly forbidden as a substitute in the translated text — its devotional register imports NT liturgical freight the OT term does not itself carry.
Auferstehung and Hiob’s anticipatory hope	Full NT technical resurrection doctrine vs. Hiob’s open, non-technical hope-language (14:14; 19:25-27)	Reserve “Auferstehung” for commentary only; never insert into the translated verses, to avoid readers assuming the text itself uses a developed doctrinal term it does not contain.
Vergeltung	Retribution-theology framing vs. 20th-century German military/reprisal vocabulary (Vergeltungswaffe, Vergeltungsschlag)	Avoid unglossed use; prefer “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang” (glossed) or plain paraphrase in lesson text.

---

5. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Job (proper name)	Adapted transliteration: Hiob	Mandatory; “Job” collides with modern German “der Job” (employment).
ha-satan	Transliteration retained: der Satan	Established Luther/Einheitsübersetzung convention; paraphrase (“der Ankläger”) reserved for glossing only.
Shaddai	Paraphrase: der Allmächtige	Established convention; transliterated “Schaddai” is not standard German Bible usage.
Sheol	Paraphrase: das Totenreich	Transliteration risks an exotic, under-glossed loanword; “Unterwelt” (the more literal-seeming alternative) rejected for its criminal-slang and Greco-Germanic mythological collision.
go’el	Paraphrase: Erlöser	Established personal-agent-noun rendering; transliteration would be unintelligible and unprecedented in German Bible tradition.
Behemoth	Transliteration retained: Behemoth	Both Luther and Einheitsübersetzung transliterate; established convention, low collision risk beyond a minor pop-culture note.
Leviathan	Transliteration retained: Leviathan	Established convention; the collision risk (Hobbes) is conceptual/associative, not solved or worsened by transliteration vs. paraphrase, and must be handled in commentary regardless.
Elihu	Transliteration: Elihu	Standard proper-name convention.
mishpat	Paraphrase: Recht	No transliteration tradition exists for this common noun; paraphrase required, with disciplined fencing from “Gerechtigkeit” (see §4).
tsedaqah/tsedeq	Paraphrase: Gerechtigkeit (baseline-established)	As above.
acharon	Paraphrase: zuletzt	Transliteration nonsensical for a common adverb; “am Jüngsten Tag” rejected as over-resolving the ambiguity.
afar (dust motif)	Paraphrase: Staub (fixed, consistent)	Common noun; must remain lexically identical at 19:25 and 42:6 to preserve the intra-book echo.
nacham (Hiob’s repentance)	Paraphrase, not the baseline noun “Buße”: “Ich widerrufe und bereue in Staub und Asche”	No adequate single-noun transliteration or direct cognate exists; the baseline’s “Buße” is an imperfect lexical match carrying confessional-sacramental freight this specific root does not intend.
Theodizee	Retained as a fully naturalized German loanword (Leibniz-coined), commentary-only	Not a biblical-text term at all; a teaching/commentary category word requiring its own historical framing (see §2.1).

---

6. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Hiob (German)

Ranked by combined doctrinal weight, German-specific cultural-collision severity, and likelihood of silent mistranslation if unflagged.

1. der Satan vs. der Teufel/Mephistopheles (chs. 1-2). The single highest cultural-collision risk in the book: Goethe’s autonomous Mephistopheles is the default German popular-imagination referent, categorically incompatible with ha-satan’s permission-bound courtroom subordination. Mandatory theologian review, every occurrence.
2. “Und aus/in meinem Fleisch werde ich Gott schauen” (19:26) — the min preposition crux. Core-passage, centuries-contested exegetical ambiguity between embodied and disembodied vision of God; German “in” resolves toward embodiment without resolving the underlying scholarly dispute. Mandatory theologian review; commentary must remain transparent, not adjudicating.
3. “Ich weiß, dass mein Erlöser lebt” (19:25) — referent ambiguity. Fixed liturgical/musical German text, but the identity of the go’el (God himself? a distinct heavenly mediator? a future or present vindicator?) remains genuinely disputed among scholars; the fixed wording must not be read as having settled this question.
4. “zuletzt” (19:25, acharon) — temporal vs. eschatological ambiguity. German resolves toward simple sequence; over-resolving toward “am Jüngsten Tag” would import undue eschatological technicality not present in the Hebrew.
5. Hiob’s repentance, “Ich widerrufe und bereue in Staub und Asche” (42:6), vs. retribution theology. Highest risk of readers concluding Hiob admits a specific guilt that caused his suffering — which would silently undo the book’s entire argument, since God vindicates Hiob’s speech in the very next verse (42:7-8). Mandatory theologian review, comparable in weight to the baseline’s working_out_salvation caution.
6. Tröster (Hiob’s human comforters) vs. der Tröster (Holy Spirit, John 14-16). Direct lexical collision already embedded in the baseline; every occurrence across chs. 2, 6, 16, 21, 29, 42 requires explicit disambiguating framing.
7. Gerechtigkeit (tsedaqah) vs. Recht (mishpat). German does not spontaneously separate these categories the way the book’s central “Verkehrt Gott das Recht?” (8:3) argument requires; consistent, disciplined dual rendering must be maintained throughout, or the book’s legal-forensic argument collapses into vague moral language.
8. “Vergeltung/Vergeltungslehre” for the friends’ retribution theology. Unglossed use risks activating the Nazi-era “Vergeltungswaffe” (V-1/V-2) association for German readers; must be glossed or avoided in favor of “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang.”
9. Leviathan (ch. 41) vs. Hobbes’s Leviathan. A strong collision for educated German readers whose first association is Hobbes’s absolutist-state political philosophy, not the biblical chaos-creature/divine-sovereignty context.
10. “zerstört ist” (19:26, niqqefu) — an already-contested Hebrew verb form layered directly beneath the flesh/vision crux. A double-stacked ambiguity (textual-grammatical uncertainty compounding the theological min-preposition crux in the very same clause); teaching material must flag both layers, not silently resolve either.
11. “Hiobsgeduld” (popular German idiom) vs. the book’s actual portrayal of Hiob as a vocal protester. A false-friend risk rooted in popular reception (via James 5:11) rather than in the Hiob text itself; must be actively corrected, not assumed as a safe entry point for German learners.
12. das Totenreich (Sheol) vs. “die Unterwelt” (rejected alternative). Lower doctrinal weight than items above but a genuine and avoidable collision with both Greco-Germanic mythological underworld imagery and contemporary criminal-slang usage (“die kriminelle Unterwelt”) if the wrong rendering is chosen.
13. Elihu’s “suffering as discipline” (33:14-30) vs. over-crediting it as the book’s full resolution. Not a lexical ambiguity but a framing risk: German teaching material may be tempted to treat Elihu’s genuinely partial corrective as the definitive answer the whirlwind speeches (chs. 38-41) do not themselves confirm as complete.
14. Vorsehung/Schicksal drift in the narrative frame (chs. 1-2, 38-42). Given the frame’s unusually explicit narration of a divine permission-granting scene, any drift toward “Schicksal” (impersonal fate) is more consequential here than in the Romans 8:28 baseline case, because it would directly contradict the visible narrative mechanics of the text.

---

7. Summary for Phase 2 Handoff

Hiob’s German-specific risk does not spread evenly across a large vocabulary list; it concentrates in a small number of recurring collision points — the Satan/Mephistopheles fault line, the 19:25-27 core-passage cluster (Erlöser / in meinem Fleisch / zuletzt), the Tröster lexical clash, the Gerechtigkeit/Recht pairing, and the 42:6 repentance-vs-retribution-theology tension. Reviewer scheduling should weight theologian time toward sustained depth on these few clusters rather than broad shallow coverage of the full glossary, consistent with the density pattern already flagged in the Step-9-adjacent core glossary’s risk summary.