2 Kings — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose and Method

This document performs the required linguistic gap analysis for the 2 Kings curriculum (core passage 2 Kings 17:1-23), covering the full book, chapters 1–25. It identifies:

1. Where existing Hmong vocabulary is missing (no natural lexical item exists for a biblical concept), requiring periphrasis or coinage.
2. Where Hmong vocabulary is crowded — a single word or root is claimed by both the biblical concept and a live traditional-religion (animist/shamanist/ancestor-veneration/fate) referent — requiring a fencing strategy (mandatory qualifier, structural pairing, or catechetical note).
3. Where a transliteration vs. paraphrase decision must be made, and the rationale.
4. A ranked list of the book’s highest-risk ambiguities, prioritized for human theologian review per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §9’s escalation rules.

2 Kings presents a distinctive gap profile compared to the Romans baseline: whereas Romans’s collisions cluster around soteriological abstractions (grace, election, righteousness), 2 Kings’s collisions cluster around concrete cultic practice — incense, high places, mediums, omens, sacred bones, oil-anointing, child sacrifice — because the narrative itself is a polemic against a rival cultic system that is structurally still alive in Hmong traditional religion today. This raises the pastoral stakes of fencing decisions considerably above the comprehension-gap register and into the collision register for a larger proportion of this book’s vocabulary than was true of Romans.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Hmong Terms (from glossary/registry)	Weaknesses	Recommended Strategy
Covenant Judgment and the Exile	kev cog lus (nrog Vajtswv) (covenant, #8); Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes) (#9); muab thawj tawm ntawm nws xub ntiag (removed from His sight, #42); kev raug ntes coj mus rau lwm teb chaws (exile, #43); kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath, #41, REUSE)	The natural Hmong bridge-concept for covenant (kev sib cog lus, inter-clan pact) is symmetrical and revocable by either party, whereas berith is God’s sovereign, unilateral, binding bond with real curse-sanctions. Without reinforcement, hearers may treat exile as a broken bilateral deal Israel could simply renegotiate, rather than the enacted penalty of a covenant whose terms God alone set. There is also a risk that “removed from His sight” (#42) is heard as a bare geographic/military event rather than relational-covenantal expulsion.	Always present kev cog lus together with its unilateral, blessing-and-curse framing in the same teaching unit as Txoj Kevcai; never let kev raug ntes (exile) stand without its causal covenant-unfaithfulness clause (17:7-17) immediately attached, exactly as bible_term_registry.json #43 already requires. Teach #42 explicitly as relational before geographic.
Prophetic Ministry and Miraculous Power (Elijah and Elisha)	tus neeg ntawm Vajtswv (man of God, #3, Critical); tus cev Vajtswv lus (prophet, #15); tus pom yav tom ntej (seer, #16); txujci tseem ceeb (great wonder, #49, Critical); koob ob npaug ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig (double portion, #48, Critical)	This is the single densest collision zone in the book: nearly every noun available in Hmong for “one with spiritual power/insight” is already occupied by a shamanic office (txiv neeb, tus saib yaig, tus txawj khawv koob). The phonetic near-collision of “txiv neej ntawm Vajtswv” with “txiv neeb” (already flagged, #3) illustrates how easily even a careful literal rendering slides into the wrong semantic field.	Maintain the fixed rendering tus neeg ntawm Vajtswv (never “txiv neej ntawm Vajtswv”) as permanent and non-negotiable. Require tus pom yav tom ntej (seer, #16) to always co-occur with tus cev Vajtswv lus (#15) per the existing mandatory-pairing note. Require txujci tseem ceeb and koob ob npaug ntawm Vaj Ntsuj Plig to always carry an explicit “God alone acted; the prophet used no technique” clause at first occurrence in each lesson module, following the reading-level re-glossing convention in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §6.
The Fall of Israel and Judah as Covenant Consequence	ntshai thiab hwm lwm tus dab (feared other gods, #26, Critical); dab mlom (idol, #27, REUSE); tej chaw siab teev dab (high place, #28); hlawv xyab...fij rau dab (burn incense, #31, Critical); coj Yixalayees tsis lawv qab tus TSWV lawm (causative sin-headship, #45)	Nearly every noun-phrase in this doctrine’s vocabulary names a living Hmong ritual practice (incense-burning, hilltop spirit-veneration, ancestral fear-and-honor idiom) rather than an extinct or foreign one, which is the opposite gap-profile from most Romans collisions (which were mostly conceptual/worldview collisions, not literal shared practice). The structural mirror between “feared the LORD” and “feared other gods” (#26) is a deliberate biblical wordplay that must survive translation, not be smoothed away.	Preserve the shared verb-idiom ntshai thiab hwm for both the LORD and false gods, precisely so learners see the structural parallel Paul-style contrast (same verb, opposite object) — this is a case where lexical reuse across the two objects is doctrinally required, unlike most other fencing strategies in this book which require lexical separation. Pair every occurrence of hlawv xyab...fij rau dab with explicit teaching that the condemnation targets the object of worship, not incense as a physical medium, to prevent overcorrection (converts wrongly concluding all incense use, e.g., in non-worship contexts, is condemned).
God’s Patience through Repeated Prophetic Warning	tus TSWV Txoj Lus (word of the LORD, #4); kuv cov qhev, cov cev lus (servants the prophets, #17, REUSE-extended); tig rov qab los cuag Vajtswv (turn/repent, #19)	The doctrine’s emotional center — God’s patience, repeatedly sending warning before judgment — has no single fixed Hmong term in the registry; “patience” itself is absent from both the Romans TM and the 2 Kings registry as a dedicated entry. This is a genuine missing-vocabulary gap, not a collision.	NEW GAP — flagged for TM-revision review (see §2 below). Recommend coining a dedicated entry kev ua siab ntev tos (a patient, waiting long-suffering) built on the already-fixed Romans baseline endurance term (kev ua siab ntev), extended with tos (to wait/await) to capture the specifically waiting-before-acting sense distinct from mere endurance-under-suffering. Must not be confused with hmoov (fate) vocabulary — God’s patience is purposeful forbearance, not passive inevitability.
Josiah’s Reforms and the Rediscovered Law	Phau Ntawv Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv) (Book of the Law, #10, Critical); txo nws lub siab rau Vajtswv (humble oneself, #20); dua/rhe nws lub tsho (tear garments, #59); Kevcai Hla Dhau (Passover, #58)	The reform narrative depends on readers grasping that a physical scroll, long neglected, triggers both institutional reform and personal contrition — two distinct responses (national/cultic vs. individual/relational) that Hmong readers may collapse into one “the king did religious things” event if not distinguished.	Keep Phau Ntawv Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv) (#10) as the fixed anchor for the institutional/cultic reform strand, and txo nws lub siab rau Vajtswv (#20) explicitly cross-referenced to tig rov qab los cuag Vajtswv (#19, turn/repent) for the personal-contrition strand, per the existing registry note. Never allow the two strands to be merged into a single undifferentiated “Josiah was religious” gloss.
Hope amid Judgment	cov seem (remnant, #62, REUSE); kev tau txais kev hlub/kev zoo siab ntawm vaj ntxwv (royal kindness to Jehoiachin, #64); ib nrab pehawm tus TSWV, ib nrab pehawm dab qhua (syncretism, #47, Critical, cautionary)	This doctrine is thin on positive vocabulary compared to its weight in the curriculum: 2 Kings ends not with a resolved hope-term but with an ambiguous narrative note (Jehoiachin’s release) that must not be over-theologized into false closure, nor under-read as merely political. There is a live risk of importing the Romans baseline’s txiaj ntsim (grace) or kev cia siab (hope) into this final scene to manufacture a tidier ending than the text supplies.	kev tau txais kev hlub (#64) must remain a neutral kindness/favor term, explicitly NOT txiaj ntsim, per the existing forbidden-substitution note. If the curriculum wishes to invoke the Romans-baseline kev cia siab (hope) term for 2 Kings 25’s ending, this must be done only in teaching commentary layered on top of the neutral narrative rendering, never folded into the translated text itself — flagged here as a transliteration-adjacent boundary decision, see §3.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing vocabulary (no natural Hmong lexical item; requires coinage/periphrasis)

These are genuine gaps — comprehension-level, not collision-level — where 2 Kings introduces concepts absent from both the Romans baseline TM and ordinary Hmong religious vocabulary.

Concept	Gap Description	Recommended Coinage (pending TM-revision review)
Divine patience/forbearance-before-judgment (theological “patience,” as distinct from hypomonē/endurance-under-suffering already fixed in Romans)	No existing Hmong term captures God’s repeated, purposeful delay of judgment while sending warning after warning (implicit across 17:13, explicit in the “many years” of 2 Kings 17’s prophetic ministry).	kev ua siab ntev tos (built on Romans kev ua siab ntev), logged per §1 above.
Regnal-formula chronology idiom (“in the Nth year of King X of Judah/Israel…”)	Hmong has no native dynastic-regnal-year convention; this is a comprehension gap unique to the historical-book genre, absent from Romans entirely.	Render literally with the established Hmong numeral/ordinal system plus explanatory apparatus (footnote map of parallel Israel/Judah reigns) at first occurrence in each lesson; not a doctrinal term, no fixed TM entry required, but recommend a standing sidebar template be adopted for consistency across all 2 Kings lessons.
”Golden calf” polemic vocabulary bridging back to Exodus 32/1 Kings 12 (#36)	The book assumes readers recall the Sinai calf incident; Hmong curricula reaching 2 Kings without prior Exodus/1 Kings coverage face a real narrative-gap, not merely a lexical one.	Not a lexical gap but a sequencing gap; recommend a mandatory cross-reference footnote at every occurrence of tus mlom menyuam nyuj kub (#36) rather than a new term.
Regnal vassal-tribute economic vocabulary (tribute payments, siege logistics, ch. 17-25 passim)	Comprehension gap around ancient Near Eastern tribute/siege economics; no doctrinal weight, but risk of confusing modern readers about the political mechanics of exile.	Periphrasis with explanatory gloss, case-by-case; no fixed term needed.

2.2 Crowded semantic neighborhoods (vocabulary already claimed by traditional religion; requires fencing)

This is the dominant gap-type in 2 Kings and the primary reason this book’s overall risk profile is higher than Romans’s. Each entry below names the crowded root/domain, the competing traditional-religion referent, and the fencing strategy.

Crowded Root/Domain	Biblical Term(s) Using It	Competing Traditional-Religion Referent	Fencing Strategy
kevcai (custom/rite root)	Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes) (#9); Phau Ntawv Txoj Kevcai (#10); kevcai Vajtswv teem tseg (#11, God’s statutes); tej kevcai/kab ke ntawm lwm haiv neeg (#12, the nations’ customs)	kev cai dab qhuas (religion, lit. “customs of spirit-worship”); general ancestral ritual custom-keeping	Mandatory qualifier at every occurrence, no exceptions (already fixed by Romans baseline for #9-10). 2 Kings-specific addition: #11 and #12 deliberately share the same root as a scriptural wordplay (Israel swapped God’s chuqqah for the nations’ chuqqah) — this is the one case in the book where shared-root reuse is required for fidelity to a source-text pun, exactly parallel to the fencing exception noted for #26 in §1 above. The qualifier phrase (not root suppression) is the fencing mechanism.
dab (spirit/false-deity root)	dab mlom (#27); ncej dab Aseyas (#30); dab Npa-as (#38); dab qhua (#47, syncretism)	The living Hmong pantheon of household, nature, and ancestral spirits (dab) that are the object of ongoing veneration in many families	Already-established baseline strategy (never soften to neutral “statue/image”); 2 Kings intensifies this by requiring the same root to appear positively nowhere in the text — there is no “good dab” category to accidentally cross-contaminate, unlike hwjchim (below) which does need positive/negative disambiguation. Lower incremental fencing burden than other rows in this table precisely because the term is uniformly negative throughout.
hwjchim (power root)	(inherited from Romans; recurs implicitly whenever 2 Kings narrates prophetic “power,” though the 2 Kings registry avoids the bare noun in favor of txujci tseem ceeb)	Shamanic ritual power (txiv neeb’s negotiating power with spirits)	The 2 Kings registry’s decision to route around hwjchim entirely in favor of txujci tseem ceeb (#49) for prophetic miracles is itself a fencing strategy worth making explicit: recommend confirming this as a permanent book-specific convention — hwjchim is reserved for the Romans-baseline senses (God’s saving power; delegated civil authority) and is NOT the default term for Elijah/Elisha’s miracles, precisely to avoid re-opening the shamanic-power collision in a context (direct prophetic combat with Baal-worship) where the stakes of confusion are maximal.
saib / ua yaig, xub yaig, caij nyoog (divination-technique root)	kev ua yaig, kev saib yaig (#32); kev saib caij nyoog, kev xub yaig (#33)	Live, currently-practiced Hmong fortune-telling and omen-reading	Fixed pairing with the legitimate counterpart nrhiav Vajtswv lub siab / mus nug tus TSWV (#21, inquire of the LORD) at every occurrence; the fence here is functional/relational (soliciting technique vs. receiving revelation), not lexical substitution, since no softer synonym would avoid the collision without also losing the text’s polemical force.
hu… ntsuj plig (soul-calling root)	kev nrhiav dab qhuas thiab hu tej ntsuj plig neeg tuag (#34, mediums/necromancy)	Hu plig — the central living Hmong ritual of ceremonially calling back a wandering soul, performed by a txiv neeb	This is the single highest-stakes fencing case in the entire book (see ranked list, §4, rank 1). The verb hu cannot be avoided (it is the only natural Hmong verb for “to call/summon”), so the fence must be built entirely around scope and object: the condemned practice is calling the spirits of the dead for guidance, which is structurally identical to, not merely analogous to, a rite some hearers’ own families still perform. Requires the mandatory human-theologian-reviewed teaching note already flagged in the registry, plus (recommended addition) an explicit pastoral bridge acknowledging the practice’s continued presence in the audience’s kinship networks, rather than treating it as a purely ancient/foreign phenomenon.
pehawm (worship-verb root)	ib nrab pehawm tus TSWV, ib nrab pehawm dab qhua (#47)	Pehawm dab — ancestor/spirit veneration	Extends the Romans-baseline worship_serve_cultic qualifier strategy (object always stated); 2 Kings raises the stakes by depicting the exact dual-worship pattern (nominal LORD-fear plus continued idol-service) that is the single most common real-world pastoral failure mode among Hmong converts, making this less a comprehension issue than a discipleship-relevant collision requiring direct pastoral address, not just lexical fencing.
txha / pob txha (bones root)	cov pob txha ntawm Elisa (#54, life-giving relic); hlawv cov pob txha neeg (#61, defiling burnt bones)	Ancestor-veneration beliefs about ongoing spiritual potency of ancestral remains/grave sites	Both occurrences must be cross-taught as a matched pair (per registry notes) establishing that bones/remains carry no inherent power in either direction apart from God’s sovereign action — this fencing strategy is unusual in that it must simultaneously guard against two opposite misreadings (magical-healing-relic AND magically-defiling-object) in the same lexical family.
roj pleev (oil-anointing root)	kev pleev roj tsa ua vaj ntxwv (#18, royal anointing)	Folk healing/blessing oil-application rituals performed by a shaman	Lower collision intensity than the rows above (comprehension-level distinguishing note sufficient per registry #18), but flagged here because it sits immediately adjacent, lexically, to the Christologically loaded “Anointed One” (Khetos) already fixed in the Romans TM — the registry’s caution against conflating the two must be preserved as a standing rule for any future book bridging OT royal anointing to NT messianic title.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

2 Kings introduces substantially more proper-noun density than Romans (kings, prophets, nations, cities, deities), requiring a systematic transliteration policy in addition to the term-level paraphrase decisions already logged in the glossary.

3.1 Proper nouns — transliteration retained (ad hoc, logged for TM-revision, per §2.4 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md)

All personal and place names (Xamalia, Yeluxalees, Axilias, Npanpiloo, Yixalayees, Yudas, Eliya, Elisa, Naaman, Kehaxi, Yehu, Yesenpee, Hexekiya, Xenakhelib, Manaxe, Yauxiya, Xedekiya, Yehauyakhee) follow existing Hmong Bible transliteration conventions and are not paraphrased. This is a low-risk decision: proper nouns carry no doctrinal ambiguity in themselves, though Yixalayees/Yudas inherit their register from the Romans-baseline nations_gentiles/jew roots and must remain consistent with that established spelling.

3.2 Deity names — transliteration WITH mandatory qualifier (never bare transliteration)

Term	Decision	Rationale
Baal (dab Npa-as, #38)	Transliterate the name, but never without the dab qualifier	A bare “Npa-as” would read as a neutral foreign personal name; the dab prefix is required at every occurrence to prevent any appearance of legitimizing the deity, paralleling the Romans-baseline idol strategy.
Asherah (ncej dab Aseyas, #30)	Transliterate + paraphrase compound (ncej = pole/post + dab + transliterated name)	Neither pure transliteration nor pure paraphrase alone communicates both the object (a cult-pole) and its status (false-deity association); the compound form is required.

3.3 The YHWH decision — paraphrase (registered convention), not transliteration

The single most consequential transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision in this Language Package (inherited and reinforced from the glossary) is the treatment of the covenant name YHWH. The decision is:

• REJECTED: Transliteration (e.g., “Yehauvas”) — explicitly forbidden, carried over from the Romans baseline §3.1 prohibition against the sectarian (NWT) divine-name-substitution pattern, and reinforced here because 2 Kings depends on this specific covenant name far more heavily than Romans did (every royal evaluation formula, every covenant-judgment clause, and the climactic 17:7-23 indictment hinge on “the LORD their God” as a named covenant partner, not a generic deity-word).
• ADOPTED: tus TSWV — a paraphrase-with-typographic-marking strategy (small-caps convention mirroring English Bible tradition) that preserves the personal-name function without introducing a new transliterated form into circulation. This is a paraphrase decision, not a transliteration decision, and should be documented as such for future books: the covenant name is never to be transliterated in this Language Package, permanently.

3.4 Ritual/technical vocabulary — paraphrase preferred over transliteration

Every entry in the divination/mediumship/idolatry cluster (#27, #30-34, #38) is rendered by native Hmong descriptive paraphrase, never by transliterating the Hebrew technical term (e.g., no “qesem,” no “ov,” no “asherah” left untranslated as a loanword). This is a deliberate, book-wide policy decision, and the rationale differs from the YHWH case:

• For YHWH, paraphrase was chosen because transliteration would sever the covenant-name’s relational force and risk sectarian-pattern contamination.
• For the divination/idolatry cluster, paraphrase is chosen for the opposite reason: transliterating “qesem” or “‘ov” would produce an opaque loanword that fails to trigger the necessary recognition-and-contrast response in the Hmong hearer. The entire pastoral value of these terms lies in the hearer recognizing “this is what my own family/village still does” — a recognition only native descriptive vocabulary (saib yaig, hu tej ntsuj plig neeg tuag) can produce. This mirrors the Romans-baseline rationale for rejecting a transliterated loanword for hilastērion (propitiation), extended here to an entire cluster rather than a single term.

3.5 “Passover” — established term retained, not re-paraphrased

Kevcai Hla Dhau (#58) is already an established Hmong Christian compound; no alternate paraphrase or transliteration is proposed. Logged here only to confirm the decision was reviewed, not overlooked, per the full-book-coverage mandate.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal load-bearing weight, (b) specificity and liveness of the competing traditional-religion referent, and (c) likelihood of silent drift without an explicit fence. All ranks 1-6 require mandatory human theologian review per escalation rules; ranks 7-10 require native-speaker review at minimum with theologian escalation on doctrinal ambiguity.

1. Mediums/necromancy — kev nrhiav dab qhuas thiab hu tej ntsuj plig neeg tuag (#34). Ranked #1 because this is not an analogous or structurally-parallel collision (as with hmoov/election in Romans) but a direct, currently-practiced-by-some-hearers’-families ritual identity match with hu plig/txiv neeb mediumship. The condemnation must land at full force (2 Kings 17:17, 21:6) while the teaching context must not alienate or shame hearers with living family practice of the condemned act. Highest pastoral-sensitivity-to-doctrinal-clarity tension in the book.

2. Burning incense to false gods — hlawv xyab...fij rau dab (#31). Ranked #2 for the same reason as #1 but at slightly lower intensity: incense-burning is arguably the single most common living Hmong ritual practice of any kind, performed far more broadly than mediumship. The risk of both under-correction (hearers miss that this text is about them) and over-correction (hearers wrongly conclude all incense use, even non-ritual, is condemned) is uniquely double-sided here.

3. “Man of God” — tus neeg ntawm Vajtswv (#3). Ranked #3 because the risk is not conceptual but phonetic: a single careless morphological choice (“txiv neej” instead of “tus neeg”) creates an accidental homophone collision with txiv neeb (shaman) that could persist silently through translator inattention across dozens of occurrences (chs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 13) before being caught, since it would “sound almost right” to an inattentive reviewer.

4. The gospel-power double-collision structural analogue — txujci tseem ceeb / prophetic power terms (#48, #49). Ranked #4 because, as in the Romans baseline’s 1:16 thesis-clause risk, this book’s core doctrine (Prophetic Ministry and Miraculous Power) requires simultaneously avoiding two adjacent collision fields (shamanic technique-power AND spirit-succession inheritance) in the very passages (2 Kings 2, the Elijah-Elisha transition) that are the doctrine’s narrative center of gravity.

5. Covenant vs. promise vs. custom — the kevcai/kev cog lus/lus cog tseg triad (#8, #9, #11, #12; cf. Romans promise). Ranked #5 because three distinct, doctrinally load-bearing Hmong terms sit in close semantic proximity, and 2 Kings is the first book in this pipeline to require all three distinguished simultaneously within a single chapter (17): the nations’ chuqqah (custom), God’s own chuqqah (statute), the torah (Law), and the berith (covenant) are four related-but-distinct concepts compressed into vv.7-23, any pairwise confusion of which weakens the indictment’s precision.

6. Syncretism formula — ib nrab pehawm tus TSWV, ib nrab pehawm dab qhua (#47). Ranked #6 because, unlike ranks 1-2 (ancient practices with living analogues), this is a description of a psychological/spiritual posture (nominal, divided loyalty) that is arguably the most common real present-day condition among nominal converts, making the collision risk behavioral/discipleship-relevant rather than merely lexical.

7. “Removed from His sight” / exile as covenant-relational vs. merely geographic — muab thawj tawm ntawm nws xub ntiag / kev raug ntes (#42, #43). Ranked #7: real risk of the entire Covenant Judgment doctrine being flattened into a bare history lesson (“Assyria conquered Israel”) if the relational-theological register is not reinforced at every occurrence.

8. Federal/representative sin-headship structural parallel — coj Yixalayees tsis lawv qab tus TSWV lawm (#45) vs. the Romans-baseline Adam-Christ typology. Ranked #8 because of the risk of over-parallel teaching (equating Jeroboam with Adam theologically rather than merely structurally-illustratively), inverted from most other risks in this list which involve under-distinction.

9. Bones/relics — life-giving (#54) vs. defiling (#61). Ranked #9: two-directional collision risk (magical-healing-relic belief AND magical-defilement belief) requiring matched cross-teaching; moderate likelihood of drift since the two episodes are twenty chapters apart and easily taught in isolation from each other.

10. Bronze serpent turned idol — tus nab tooj lag uas luag pheej teev (#55). Ranked #10: lower narrative weight than ranks 1-9, but flagged for its teaching value regarding legitimate-object-becoming-idol, directly relevant to converts retaining inherited ritual paraphernalia; risk is primarily under-utilization of a valuable teaching point rather than doctrinal inversion.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2 Generation

1. Adopt kev ua siab ntev tos as a new TM-revision-pending entry for “divine patience” (§2.1), logged rather than silently improvised each time the doctrine is invoked.
2. Confirm as permanent book-specific policy that hwjchim is never used as the default term for Elijah/Elisha’s miracles; txujci tseem ceeb is reserved for that role (§2.2).
3. Require the matched-pair teaching convention (bones chs. 13/23; seer+prophet ch. 17; nations’-statutes+God’s-statutes ch. 17; feared-the-LORD+feared-other-gods ch. 17) to be structurally enforced in lesson templates, not left to individual lesson authors’ discretion.
4. Escalate ranks 1-6 of §4 automatically to human theologian review with no automated-review bypass, consistent with the Romans-baseline escalation rule extended to this book’s Critical-tier collisions.
5. Retain the paraphrase-over-transliteration policy for the entire divination/idolatry/mediumship cluster (§3.4) as a permanent book-wide convention, and retain the paraphrase (never transliteration) policy for YHWH (§3.3) as a cross-book-permanent convention binding on all future OT curricula in this pipeline.
6. All findings in this document are proposals pending formal TM-revision review; no entry here overrides or amends the permanent Romans baseline translation_memory.json.