Haggai — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose and Scope

This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 of the TRI pipeline: it maps every doctrine assigned to this curriculum against the Hmong vocabulary actually available (per the Romans baseline TM and the Haggai-specific registry produced in Steps 6-7), identifies where vocabulary is missing (comprehension gaps) versus where it is crowded (collision/contamination risk from Hmong traditional religion), decides where transliteration is preferable to paraphrase and vice versa, and produces a single ranked list of the book’s highest-risk ambiguities for downstream Phase 2 enforcement. It covers the entire book of Haggai, chapters 1-2, with the core passage (1:1-11) treated as the theological anchor, not the scope boundary. No chapter or doctrine is silently omitted; §6 logs coverage explicitly.

This document does not introduce new renderings that contradict assets/translation_memory.json, analysis/08_core_glossary.md, or assets/bible_term_registry.json. Where a term already carries a fixed rendering, this analysis reuses it verbatim and analyzes its behavior in Haggai’s specific doctrinal context.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the four assigned doctrines: the destination-language terms currently available, their structural weaknesses, and the recommended mitigation strategy.

D1 — Priorities: God’s House versus Self-Interest

Available Hmong Terms	Source	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
lub Tuam Tsev ntawm Vajtswv (house of the LORD)	Registry #10	Tsev shares its root with tsev dab (household ancestor/spirit-shrine); an unqualified tsev in a sacred-space context defaults to shrine-house associations.	Mandatory qualifier ntawm Vajtswv at every occurrence, with zero exceptions — structural, not stylistic, parallel to the Romans baseline’s Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes) enforcement pattern.
nws lub tsev nyob (his own house, unqualified)	Registry #14	None — this is the correct unqualified use, referring to ordinary private dwellings.	Preserve the qualified/unqualified contrast deliberately: temple always qualified, private houses never qualified with a divine referent. The absence of a qualifier on private houses is itself the doctrinal signal and must not be “fixed” by a well-meaning translator adding warmth or specificity.
lub tsev muaj txaij ntoo zoo nkauj (paneled houses)	Registry #13	Comprehension gap only (wood-paneling as a luxury marker is culturally distant); no collision.	Retain literal image; brief cultural gloss (“a costly, finished house”) sufficient. No fencing required.
pob tas / tso cia kom pob (ruins/desolate)	Registry #12	Hmong traditional causal frame attributes a dwelling’s decay to angered ancestral/nature spirits requiring ritual appeasement to reverse — a different mechanism than the one Haggai teaches.	Explicit teaching note at first occurrence: ruin here is covenant consequence for misplaced priority, reversed by obedient labor, not appeasement ritual.
haiv neeg no (this people)	Registry #15	Could be misheard as formal covenant-exclusion language (“this people,” as opposed to “my people”).	Footnote clarifying rhetorical distancing/rebuke tone, not a change in covenant status.

Doctrine-level gap: There is no missing vocabulary here — every needed lexeme exists in Hmong. The risk is entirely crowded-neighborhood (tsev/tsev dab) and contrastive-structure preservation (qualified temple vs. unqualified private house). This doctrine’s translation risk is managed by discipline of application, not lexical invention.

---

D2 — Obedience and Blessing

Available Hmong Terms	Source	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
mloog tus Tswv lus (obeyed the voice of the LORD)	Registry #23	Low risk; conceptually adjacent to but not identical with the Romans baseline’s NT-specific kev mloog lus ntawm kev ntseeg (obedience of faith), which carries a faith-nexus this OT covenant-obedience context does not require.	Use as-is; do not import the Romans obedience_of_faith compound, which would over-theologize a straightforward historical-narrative obedience report.
koob hmoov (material blessing)	Registry #25; sanctioned exception in TM grace entry	This is the Romans TM’s own explicitly reserved use-case, so lexically there is no problem — but Haggai activates it at exactly the doctrinal fault-line the Romans baseline drew: material blessing tied to covenant obedience, immediately adjacent (one chapter) to material futility tied to covenant disobedience (1:6-11).	Reinforce with a teaching note at 2:19 that this remains a sovereign covenant response to obedience — not an automatic ritual-correctness mechanism, which is how koob hmoov functions in ordinary Hmong usage (favor secured/lost by ritual correctness toward ancestors/spirits). This is a doctrine-adjacent risk elevation of an otherwise Low-risk term — see §4 ranked list.
Futility catalog (tseb noob ntau... noj tsis tsau...)	Registry #17-18	Concrete agrarian/economic imagery transfers cleanly; risk is entirely in causal attribution (see next rows), not in the image vocabulary itself.	No lexical fix needed; pair every occurrence with the causal-attribution teaching note below.
kuv tshuab ncaws mus (I blew it away)	Registry #19	High — default Hmong causal frame for scattered/failed harvest is an offended wind-spirit or impersonal fate (hmoov), not a personal covenant God’s deliberate discipline.	Anchor grammatically to tus Tswv as explicit subject in the same clause every time; never allow a passive/agentless rendering that invites spirit-agency inference.
ntuj tsis tso lwg los / lub ntiajteb tsis muaj qoob loo zoo (heavens withheld dew)	Registry #20	High — weather phenomena are the single most spirit-attributed domain in Hmong traditional cosmology (sky-spirits, ancestor spirits, ritual correctness).	Same anchoring strategy as above; do not allow this verse to stand as an isolated nature-description without the surrounding causal frame (LORD of hosts as subject) in the same teaching unit.
kuv tau hu kom muaj kev tshav ntuj qhuav (called for a drought)	Registry #21	High — same collision as above, compounded by an untranslatable Hebrew wordplay (ḥrb root shared between “ruins” and “drought”) that a Hmong reader cannot recover lexically.	Footnote the wordplay explicitly as a teaching aid rather than attempting a forced Hmong pun; maintain the causal-agency anchoring.

Doctrine-level gap: No missing vocabulary. The dominant risk is a crowded neighborhood: Hmong already has a complete, ready-made causal explanation (spirit-anger, fate) for every material-loss/material-blessing image Haggai uses, and that explanation is available by default unless every occurrence is explicitly re-anchored to the LORD’s personal covenant agency.

---

D3 — The Presence and Spirit of God with His People

Available Hmong Terms	Source	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
Vaj Ntsuj Plig (God’s own Spirit, 2:5)	Registry #4; TM holy_spirit	Critical — this is the single highest-stakes term in the book. The mandatory “Vaj” prefix is the entire disambiguation mechanism separating the divine Spirit from the animistic multi-soul concept.	Zero-exception enforcement of the “Vaj” prefix at every occurrence; no abbreviation, no pronoun-only reference across sentence boundaries within the same teaching unit.
ntsuj plig (human spirit, 1:14)	Registry #5; TM human_spirit_soul	High — must never receive the “Vaj” prefix, and must be understood by the reader as belonging to Zerubbabel/Joshua/the remnant, not to God.	Keep referent explicit (“their spirit,” “lawv tus ntsuj plig”) at every occurrence; never let it stand as a bare noun that could float toward the 2:5 referent in the reader’s memory.
Vajtswv txhib lawv tus ntsuj plig (the LORD stirred up their spirit)	Registry #30	Compounds the #5 risk: “stirred up” (txhib) is an active-causation verb that, paired with ntsuj plig, risks sounding like a spirit-invocation or possession-inducing act (cf. baseline’s indwelling_sin caution against dab-adjacent possession vocabulary).	Do not pair with any vocabulary drawn from hu plig (soul-calling) ritual language; keep the verb frame strictly volitional/psychological (“gave them courage/resolve”), never invocational.
Kuv nrog nej nyob (I am with you)	Registry #31	High — near-identical in surface form to ancestor/nature-spirit companionship formulas (hu plig, ritually inviting a spirit to “stay with” a household).	Always co-occur with the explicit subject tus Tswv hais li no in the same clause/verse, never left as a free-floating assurance without its divine speaker tagged.
tsis txhob ntshai (fear not)	Registry #32	Low — stable reassurance formula.	No fencing required; retain as-is.

Doctrine-level gap: No missing vocabulary; this is the book’s most crowded neighborhood in absolute doctrinal-stakes terms, because Haggai compresses into two chapters the exact same disambiguation challenge (divine Spirit vs. human spirit vs. spirit-companionship formula) that Romans spreads across eight chapters (Rom 8). The compression itself is the elevated risk factor — see §4.

---

D4 — The Coming Glory of the Temple

Available Hmong Terms	Source	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
lub yeeb koob (glory)	Registry #33; TM glory	Low — stable, direct reuse.	No fencing required.
tus TSWV uas kav Ib Tsoom Tub Rog Saum Ntuj (LORD of hosts)	Registry #3	Critical — parallels the Romans baseline’s hwjchim shamanic-power collision (registry #62); risks being heard as “a more powerful spirit-general” commanding an army of spirits rather than the Creator’s unique sovereignty over a real angelic host. Elevated further here by sheer frequency (~14 occurrences in 2 chapters — a much higher density than any single comparable Romans title).	Full phrase mandatory at every occurrence, never abbreviated to bare tus Tswv, regardless of space constraints (titles, section headers, quiz stems) — same structural-enforcement class as the Romans baseline’s Vajtswv hwjchim rule.
kuv yuav ua kom ntuj thiab ntiajteb koog/tshee (shake the heavens and earth)	Registry #35	Medium — comprehension-level overlap with shamanic cosmic-battle imagery, not a doctrine-inverting collision.	Brief note; cross-reference Hebrews 12:26-27 for typological continuity.
tej khoom muaj nqis ntawm ib tsoom tebchaws (treasures/Desire of all nations)	Registry #36	High — genuine text-critical/interpretive fork (collective-material vs. singular-messianic reading) that the Hmong rendering cannot resolve without pre-judging exegesis.	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] — do not resolve unilaterally; the current rendering favors the collective-material reading by grammatical number and must be flagged, not silently finalized.
lub yeeb koob + comparative clause (latter glory greater than the former)	Registry #38	Medium — lexically safe reuse, but the NT fulfillment-typology (Christ as greater temple/glory) is a theologian-level framing decision, not a lexical one.	Flag any curriculum content drawing the Christ-typology connection for theologian review of framing, even though the base vocabulary needs no revision.
kuv xaiv koj lawm (I have chosen you, 2:23)	Registry #39; TM election_choose	Critical — direct reuse of the Romans baseline’s highest-risk sovereignty term; hmoov (fate) substitution is permanently forbidden here exactly as in Romans 9-11.	Mandatory volitional clause retained without exception; this is a structural enforcement carryover, not a new decision.
kuv tus qhev (my servant, royal-messianic honorific, 2:23)	Registry #40	Medium-High — shares the lexeme with the Romans baseline’s self-abasement doulos/qhev sense (registry #10), but functions here as a royal honorific parallel to “my servant David,” a distinct semantic register the shared lexeme cannot mark on its own.	Explicit teaching note distinguishing the two senses at every occurrence; [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm whether an existing Hmong OT tradition supplies a distinct honorific term] before treating kuv tus qhev as permanent for this sense.
lub cim uas coj hauv looj tes (signet ring)	Registry #41	Low-Medium — comprehension gap (no Hmong clan-seal equivalent), plus an intertextual reversal of Jeremiah 22:24 carrying messianic weight.	Explanatory note on ANE signet-ring function; flag Jeremiah-reversal typology for theologian input if used in advanced teaching.

Doctrine-level gap: One genuine missing-vocabulary item (there is no neutral Hmong noun that cleanly carries the material/messianic ambiguity of chemdat kol-haggoyim without collapsing it one way or the other — see §2.2) plus multiple crowded-neighborhood reuses of Critical Romans-baseline terms (hwjchim-class, election_choose) now compressed into a shorter, higher-density text.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (the dominant risk pattern in Haggai)

Unlike Romans, where several genuinely novel theological concepts required new coinages, Haggai’s translation risk is almost entirely a crowding problem: Hmong already possesses ready, fluent, culturally normal vocabulary for nearly every image in the book (houses, weather, harvest failure, spirit-companionship, spirit-armies, purity/impurity) — and in every case, that ready vocabulary belongs first to a traditional-religion domain which the biblical text is not using in that sense. The fencing task is therefore not “find a word” but “prevent the default reading.”

Neighborhood	Biblical Referent	Competing Traditional Referent	Fencing Mechanism
tsev (house)	Temple, God’s dwelling-place	tsev dab — household ancestor/spirit-shrine	Mandatory ntawm Vajtswv qualifier, contrastive with unqualified private houses
Weather/harvest causation	Covenant discipline/blessing (1:6-11; 2:19)	Sky-spirits, ancestor spirits, hmoov (impersonal fate)	Explicit grammatical subject-anchoring to tus Tswv in every clause
ntsuj plig / spirit-presence	Human courage stirred by God (1:14); divine Spirit abiding (2:5); covenant-presence formula (1:13, 2:4)	Animistic multi-soul concept; hu plig soul-calling; ancestor/nature-spirit companionship	”Vaj” prefix discipline (divine only); explicit-subject discipline for “I am with you”; never pair with invocational verbs
hwjchim-class military/power titles	LORD of hosts — Creator’s sovereignty over a real angelic host	txiv neeb’s claimed command of spirit-armies	Mandatory full-title phrase, never abbreviated
dawb huv / qias tsis huv (holy/unclean)	Ceremonial defilement as covenant-relational diagnosis (2:10-14)	Ritual purity/spirit-contamination requiring shamanic cleansing	Explicit teaching that the remedy is returning to obedience, not ritual purification technique — this is the book’s most structurally dangerous crowding because the biblical text’s own argument (contagious impurity) formally resembles the folk-purity logic it must be distinguished from
fij-adjacent acceptance language (kom kuv txaus siab rau nws)	God’s gracious acceptance of obedient temple-building	Ritual-correctness appeasement securing spirit favor	No offering-word used in source, but proximity to the Romans baseline’s fij fencing (registry #64) requires the same “response/devotion, not transaction” teaching frame
koob hmoov (material blessing)	Sovereign covenant response to renewed obedience (2:19)	Fortune/luck secured or forfeited by ritual correctness	Teaching note reinforcing sovereignty even though the lexical choice itself is TM-sanctioned

Key structural observation: Six of Haggai’s twelve highest-risk terms share exactly the collision mechanism already documented and fenced in the Romans baseline (tsev/kevcai-root sharing; hwjchim; Vaj Ntsuj Plig; election/hmoov; fij). Haggai does not introduce new collision categories — it redistributes known Romans-baseline collision risks into a much higher density per verse, because Haggai is short (38 verses) and its central subject (a physical, contested house) sits precisely inside the crowded tsev neighborhood for nearly every verse of chapter 1.

2.2 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (true comprehension gaps, no ready native term)

These are cases where Hmong has no existing lexeme carrying the needed sense at all — not a collision, but a hole:

1. chemdat kol-haggoyim (“Desire/treasures of all nations,” 2:7). No single Hmong noun spans both the material-collective and personal-messianic senses simultaneously; the current rendering (tej khoom muaj nqis ntawm ib tsoom tebchaws) necessarily commits to the material-collective reading by its plural/collective grammar. This is a missing-vocabulary gap with theological consequence, not merely a comprehension issue — flagged for mandatory theologian review rather than silent resolution.
2. Olive/grape/oil produce triad (dagan/tirosh/yitzhar, 1:11). Not a collision but a botanical-comprehension gap identical in kind to the Romans baseline’s grafted_olive_tree note (registry #60); resolved the same way — retain the literal image, supply a cultural-equivalence gloss (rice, home-brewed spirits, cooking oil), no lexical substitution needed.
3. Wood-paneling as a luxury marker (batim sefunim, 1:4). No native Hmong architectural-luxury vocabulary maps precisely; resolved with a brief descriptive gloss, not a new coinage.
4. Persian administrative/dating conventions (regnal year, Hebrew month names, 1:1, 1:15, 2:1, 2:10, 2:18, 2:20). A pure historical-comprehension gap; resolved by footnote, never by a lexical decision.
5. Signet ring (chotam, 2:23). No Hmong clan-seal equivalent exists; resolved by descriptive gloss plus theologian-flagged note on the Jeremiah 22:24 reversal typology.

None of items 2-5 carry doctrinal weight beyond comprehension; item 1 is the sole genuinely missing-vocabulary item with doctrinal consequence in the entire book.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Proper names (Haggai, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Joshua, Jehozadak, Darius)	Transliterate ad hoc, following existing fixed-name register conventions (Yexus Khetos, Povlauj, Abba)	No paraphrase is possible for proper names; the only decision is transliteration convention (which existing Hmong OT tradition, if any, to follow). All five names are logged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] in the registry pending confirmation against an existing Hmong Old Testament tradition — this analysis does not resolve that gap, consistent with the escalation-not-guess rule.
Abba (Romans baseline, for comparison)	Transliteration retained with gloss	Precedent for retaining a loanword when it carries irreducible intimacy/identity marking not achievable by paraphrase — proper names in Haggai follow the same logic.
LORD of hosts (YHWH Tseba’ot)	Paraphrase (full descriptive phrase), not transliteration	A transliterated Hebrew phrase would be doctrinally opaque to a Hmong reader and would forfeit the very disambiguation work the phrase needs to do against the hwjchim/shamanic-power collision; paraphrase with a fixed, mandatory qualifier is the only viable strategy, exactly as the Romans baseline chose paraphrase over transliteration for hilastērion and baptizō for the same reason (opacity would prevent necessary contrast-teaching).
qodesh / tame (holy/unclean)	Paraphrase using existing dawb huv / qias tsis huv	Reuses Romans-baseline-adjacent vocabulary (registry #46 sanctification) rather than transliterating Hebrew ritual-legal terms, which would be doctrinally inert (comprehensible only to a reader who already knows Hebrew ritual law) and would forfeit the needed folk-purity contrast-teaching.
chemdat kol-haggoyim	Paraphrase, provisional, flagged	Transliteration is not viable for a common-noun phrase; the paraphrase chosen necessarily resolves an unresolved exegetical question, hence the mandatory review flag rather than silent finalization.
devar-YHWH (word of the LORD formula)	Paraphrase (Vajtswv Txoj Lus)	Already-existing Hmong Christian formula; transliteration would be both unnecessary and opaque.
Persian/Hebrew calendar terms (regnal years, month names)	Paraphrase + footnote, not transliteration	Transliterating Hebrew month names (e.g., “Elul”) without explanation produces pure noise for a Hmong reader; a descriptive footnote (season/approximate Gregorian month) serves comprehension better than a bare loanword.
avdi (“my servant,” royal-messianic sense)	Reuse existing lexeme (qhev) with mandatory disambiguating note, not a new coinage or transliteration	Coining a wholly new term risks an unreviewed, non-traditional-sounding neologism; transliterating the Hebrew would be opaque; the working solution is lexical reuse plus teaching note, flagged for confirmation against existing Hmong OT tradition.

General principle applied: Haggai follows the same transliteration-vs-paraphrase logic already established in the Romans baseline: transliterate only proper names and a small class of theologically load-bearing loanwords already fixed in Hmong Christian tradition (none of which recur as new items in Haggai beyond names); paraphrase everything else, especially where opacity would forfeit necessary contrast-teaching against a traditional-religion collision.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal load-bearing weight × collision specificity × occurrence density) across the whole book:

1. Vaj Ntsuj Plig vs. ntsuj plig (2:5 vs. 1:14) — Critical. The single highest-stakes disambiguation in the book: two occurrences of the same Hebrew root (ruach) separated by barely more than a chapter, requiring opposite treatment (mandatory divine prefix vs. mandatory absence of that prefix). A single dropped or misapplied “Vaj” prefix inverts the doctrine of God’s personal, distinct Spirit into either an absent deity (if 2:5 loses “Vaj”) or a deified human soul (if 1:14 gains it).
2. tus TSWV uas kav Ib Tsoom Tub Rog Saum Ntuj (LORD of hosts) — Critical. Highest-density risk item by sheer occurrence count (~14 times in 38 verses); every abbreviation to bare tus Tswv silently erases the military-sovereignty force that answers the community’s felt powerlessness, and every unqualified hwjchim-adjacent phrasing risks a shamanic-power misreading.
3. dawb huv / qias tsis huv (holy/unclean contagion argument, 2:10-14) — Critical. Uniquely dangerous because the biblical argument itself is a purity-contagion argument, structurally resembling Hmong folk-purity logic (ritual defilement spreading by contact, remedied by shamanic cleansing) far more closely than any other passage in either Testament covered by this pipeline so far. The remedy Haggai supplies (return to obedience) must be taught as explicitly not a ritual-cleansing technique.
4. lub Tuam Tsev ntawm Vajtswv vs. lub tsev (temple vs. private house contrastive pair, esp. 1:9) — High. The doctrinal payload of Priorities (D1) depends entirely on preserving a qualified/unqualified contrast that a smoothing translator could easily flatten (e.g., by qualifying both, or neither, for stylistic parallelism).
5. Weather/harvest causation clauses (1:9-11) — High. Three consecutive high-risk items (kuv tshuab ncaws mus; heavens/earth withholding; the drought-wordplay) form a single unbroken stretch where the default Hmong explanatory framework (spirit-anger, fate) is fully available and the text supplies no grammatical safeguard beyond consistent explicit-subject anchoring — the highest concentration of collision-risk verses per verse-count in the book.
6. Kuv nrog nej nyob (covenant-presence formula, 1:13; 2:4) — High. Near-identical surface form to ancestor/spirit companionship-invitation formulas; risk is elevated by the formula’s brevity and its natural home in exactly the emotionally reassuring register where a hearer’s traditional-religion instincts are least guarded.
7. kuv xaiv koj lawm (election of Zerubbabel, 2:23) — Critical (inherited). Full-strength carryover of the Romans baseline’s highest sovereignty-doctrine risk, compressed into a single climactic verse; the hmoov prohibition must transfer without dilution.
8. tej khoom muaj nqis ntawm ib tsoom tebchaws (Desire of all nations, 2:7) — High, genuinely unresolved. The only item on this list that is a missing-vocabulary problem rather than a crowded-neighborhood problem; the current rendering pre-commits to one side of a live exegetical fork and must not be finalized without theologian sign-off.
9. kuv tus qhev (my servant, royal-messianic honorific, 2:23) — Medium-High. Lower severity than items 1-8 because the collision is register-confusion (honorific vs. self-abasement sense of the same lexeme) rather than a traditional-religion collision, but still requires a documented disambiguating note and a pending confirmation query.
10. koob hmoov (material blessing, 2:19) — Medium, elevated by context. Lexically safe (TM-sanctioned exception) but sits in unusually close narrative proximity to the futility-catalog’s covenant-curse material loss, creating a blessing/curse pair that a hearer could misread as two faces of the same fate-mechanics system rather than as one sovereign covenant God’s two responses to two behaviors.

---

5. Cross-Cutting Recommendations for Phase 2 Enforcement

1. Extend, do not duplicate, the Romans baseline’s structural-enforcement mechanisms. Haggai introduces no new mechanism for qualifier-enforcement — it reuses the Romans baseline’s exact discipline (mandatory qualifier phrases, never abbreviated, character-for-character consistent) for LORD of hosts, house of the LORD, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, and kev xaiv, at a compressed density that makes automated post-generation scanning (checking every occurrence of tus Tswv for the hosts-qualifier, every occurrence of tsev for the divine qualifier, every occurrence of ntsuj plig for prefix-correctness) especially important given how easily a short book invites stylistic “variation for freshness” that the baseline forbids.
2. Do not resolve the chemdat kol-haggoyim fork in Phase 2 generation. Any lesson, footnote, or summary touching 2:7 must either use the current provisional material-collective rendering with an explicit review flag, or insert [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] rather than silently choosing the messianic reading for devotional effect.
3. Treat 1:9-11 and 2:10-14 as the two highest-density risk zones requiring the most explicit contrast-teaching per verse in the entire curriculum — denser than any comparable stretch in the Romans package, because Haggai’s brevity concentrates multiple Critical/High collision terms into a handful of consecutive verses.
4. Log all five proper names as pending confirmation, not as finalized TM entries, until an existing Hmong Old Testament tradition (if any) is checked; do not allow ad hoc transliterations proposed here to be treated as permanent without that confirmation step.

---

6. Full-Book Coverage Log

Chapter	New Terms / Doctrines Surfaced	Status
Haggai 1	Core passage (1:1-11): LORD of hosts, house of the LORD, ruins, paneled houses, my house/his house contrast, futility catalog, weather-withholding, drought wordplay, produce triad, consider your ways, obeyed the voice, human spirit stirred, covenant-presence formula, governor/high-priest/prophet titles, word-of-the-LORD formula. All four doctrines active (D1 dominant, D2 dominant, D3 introduced at 1:13-14).	Reviewed — highest term density in book; core passage plus full chapter analyzed above.
Haggai 2	Latter glory vs. former glory, LORD of hosts (continued), Vaj Ntsuj Plig (divine Spirit), fear not, holy/unclean contagion argument, material blessing (koob hmoov), shaking heavens and earth, Desire of all nations, silver/gold ownership, election of Zerubbabel, servant/signet ring, overthrow of kingdoms. D3 and D4 dominant; D1/D2 echoed via the blessing contrast.	Reviewed — fully analyzed above; no sub-section omitted.

No chapter of Haggai contributes “no new terms or doctrines” — the book is short enough that every chapter is doctrinally load-bearing; both chapters receive full treatment above and neither is a thin/skip case.

---

7. Governing Note

This document extends assets/translation_memory.json, analysis/08_core_glossary.md, and assets/bible_term_registry.json for Haggai and introduces no rendering that contradicts them. All Critical/High items identified here inherit the same human-theologian review routing established in the Romans baseline’s assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json review-routing rule and must be carried forward into the Haggai doctrine risk registry (Phase 1 Step 9) without dilution.