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 | 9 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Salvation, Grace, Sainthood, Divine Calling, Lordship/Deity/Sonship/Resurrection of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 11 | Human theologian | Gospel, Incarnation, Faith, Effectual Calling, Sanctification, Prayer and Intercession, Assurance of Salvation |
| Medium | 18 | Native speaker review | Thanksgiving, Christian Fellowship, Spiritual Gifts, Providence, Unity of Jews and Gentiles, Church as God’s People |
| Low | 2 | Automated review only | Apostleship, Mutual Edification |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
Greek’s Critical-risk cluster is unique in this pipeline for containing two genuinely opposite failure modes side by side. Divine Calling and Lordship of Christ are Critical because two thousand years of ordinary secular usage have worn κλήση and Κύριος down into administratively mundane words (a phone call, “Mister”), risking a translation that is technically correct but rhetorically flat. Salvation, Grace, and Sainthood are Critical for the opposite reason: native, unmediated access to Greek Orthodox patristic theology (theosis, saint veneration tied to name days) risks layering later theological and devotional content onto Paul’s own first-century argument. No other Language Package in this pipeline has Critical-risk doctrines failing in both directions simultaneously.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (20 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Greek is fluent, and even confirm it is technically the New Testament’s own vocabulary, without catching that the word has drifted, in either direction, from what Paul’s argument in Romans actually requires. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is a milder version of the same secular-versus-liturgical semantic competition (thanksgiving/Eucharist, fellowship/Communion/society) rather than a severe doctrinal distortion.