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 | Salvation, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 23 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 7 | Native speaker review | Apostleship, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
All seven Critical-risk doctrines share one property: each has a ready-made, fluent-sounding Hindi word drawn from Hindu theology that directly contradicts the doctrine (see Comparative Theology). This isn’t a coincidence — it’s precisely the doctrines where the “obvious” translation is wrong that carry the highest risk, because a mistranslation would read as correct to a Hindi speaker rather than as an obvious error.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (30 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Hindi is fluent without catching that it imports a contradictory theological framework. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit and sensitivity (e.g. colonial connotations of “mission”) rather than doctrinal contradiction.