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, Lordship of Christ
High	10	Human theologian	Grace, Salvation, Obedience of Faith, Sainthood, Unity of Jews and Gentiles, Church as God’s People
Medium	21	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). German’s Critical/High tier clusters around three distinct and genuinely different mechanisms: confessional vocabulary overlap between Catholic and Lutheran/Reformed tradition (Grace, Sainthood), historically contaminated vocabulary specific to 20th-century German history (Salvation’s Heil problem, the Jew/Gentile pairing), and a single unusually strong everyday-honorific collision (Lordship of Christ’s “Herr”/“Mr.” overlap). This is a narrower but in places more historically fraught risk profile than Hindi’s, reflected in 13 doctrines requiring theologian review compared to Hindi’s 30.

Review routing rationale

Critical and High risk doctrines (13 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because only a theologically and historically informed reviewer can judge whether a fluent German rendering has quietly resolved a live Catholic/Protestant disagreement, or handled a historically sensitive term (Heil, Juden und Heiden) with appropriate care. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is register or secular-drift clarity rather than doctrinal contradiction or historical sensitivity.