Hebrews — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Destination Language)

0. Purpose and Method

This document performs the Phase 1 Step 8 linguistic-gap analysis for the Hmong Hebrews Language Package. It builds directly on analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json (Hebrews-specific, Phase 1 Step 2) and inherits every risk-tier, qualifier, and forbidden-substitution rule already fixed in the baseline Hmong Romans package. Nothing below introduces a new permanent rendering; it identifies where the destination language (a) lacks vocabulary entirely (missing-vocabulary gaps), (b) has vocabulary that is shared by multiple competing referents and therefore needs deliberate lexical fencing (crowded semantic neighborhoods), (c) requires a transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision, and (d) which resulting ambiguities carry the highest doctrinal risk across the whole letter, with the core passage (Hebrews 9:11-28) as the theological anchor rather than the boundary of the analysis. All 13 chapters were reviewed for this analysis; none were skipped.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the eight assigned Hebrews doctrines: the available Hmong terms (registry IDs from assets/bible_term_registry.json), their specific weaknesses, and the recommended mitigation strategy for Phase 2 generation.

Doctrine 1 — The Superiority of Christ over Angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
tus timtswv (angel, #8)	Stable hymnody term, but sits inside a dense Hmong cosmology of mediating spirit-beings (dab) that are propitiated, not merely respected.	Every occurrence must be paired with explicit “created, worshipping, never worshiped” teaching; contrast with Christ, who is worshiped (1:6).
cov timtswv muaj tis (cherubim, #9); cov timtswv uas ua haujlwm pab Vajtswv (ministering spirits, #12)	Built on #8; comprehension-only extensions.	Reuse #8’s teaching discipline; no separate mitigation needed.
tus thawj tug tub (firstborn, #90)	Positive birth-order bridge, but risks an Arian-adjacent “first among created things” misreading in 1:6.	Teach explicitly as rank-supremacy, not chronological/created birth.
tus tu (haujlwm rau Vajtswv) (Moses as attendant/therapōn, #25)	Deliberately NOT qhev (bondservant, Romans #10); if the distinction is lost, Moses’ honored status and Christ’s superior “Son” status (3:5-6) collapse into the same register.	Enforce as a structurally separate lexeme from qhev in every generation pass; never substitute one for the other.
pov thawj / tus Tuam Pov Thawj (priesthood/High Priest, #13-14)	Shares the letter’s central shamanism-collision risk (see Doctrine 2 below).	See Doctrine 2 strategy; the comparative argument (“greater than Moses,” “greater than the priests”) must retain the contrastive syntax (...tab sis Yexus zoo dua...) at every superiority claim.

Doctrine 2 — Christ as the Great High Priest

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
tus Tuam Pov Thawj (High Priest, #13, Critical); pov thawj / kev ua pov thawj (#14, High)	The only culturally-proximate Hmong ritual-mediator role is txiv neeb (shaman/spirit-medium); without constant disambiguation, hearers will default to that frame for any human-divine mediator.	txiv neeb vocabulary is PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN in any co-text with these terms. Every occurrence should be reinforced with non-shamanic framing (appointed by God, once-for-all, enthroned, not consulted repeatedly).
Melexixedes / raws li kev ua pov thawj ntawm Melexixedes (#23)	Typological argument (a king-priest outside the Levitical line) is a genuine comprehension gap, not a collision.	Dedicated teaching note per occurrence; transliterate the proper name (see §4 below).
khoom fij (#27); muab nws tus kheej fij (#31)	Christ as simultaneously priest and offering is a theological density absent from Romans; risk of being heard as “one more appeasement gift.”	Explicit teaching: Christ offers Himself, once, as both priest and victim — never repeated, never a transaction with a capricious spirit.

Doctrine 3 — The New Covenant versus the Old

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
tsab cog lus (covenant, #44, Critical); Tsab Cog Lus Tshiab / Tsab Cog Lus Qub (#45-46)	Positive cultural bridge (Hmong clan alliance-pacts sealed by shared drink/blood) risks reducing God’s covenant to a mutual social bargain rather than a unilaterally-initiated, grace-grounded arrangement.	Teach explicitly that God, not Israel, initiates and guarantees this covenant; keep visually/lexically distinct from lus cog tseg.
lus cog tseg (promise, #73, Low)	Risk of conflation with tsab cog lus if used loosely — a one-sided pledge is not the same category as a two-party, death-sealed pact.	Never use interchangeably; reserve tsab cog lus strictly for the covenant-pact sense.
Testament wordplay (#47, flagged)	tsab cog lus carries no inherent “legal will activated by death” sense; the writer’s Greek pun (9:16-17) is lexically untranslatable.	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] retained; resolve only through a dedicated teaching note explaining the Greek wordplay, never through an alternate Hmong rendering.
tus ua nruab nrab (mediator, #48); lus twv (oath, #49)	Positive go-between/oath-taking bridges; risk is under-teaching uniqueness/self-guarantee, not collision.	Teach Christ’s mediatorship and God’s self-guaranteeing oath as categorically unique.
Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes) (#53, Critical, inherited)	Same qualifier discipline as Romans; heightened risk here because the letter argues the Law’s ritual system is provisional — dropping the qualifier could imply the Law itself is discardable ancestral custom rather than a purposeful, divinely-given administration now fulfilled.	Qualifier never dropped, including in provisional/obsolescence arguments (ch.7-8).

Doctrine 4 — The Once-for-All Atoning Sacrifice

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
ib zaug xwb / tas li (once for all, #29, Critical — mandatory structural qualifier); ntau zaus (often, #30, contrast pole)	This is the single highest-density risk pairing in the letter: if the qualifier is dropped from any reference to Christ’s sacrifice/blood/death, the entire argument collapses into “one more sacrifice in an ongoing system” — precisely the shamanic-appeasement misreading the letter exists to prevent.	Enforce on the same structural tier as Vajtswv hwjchim and raug suav tias ncaj ncees: never omitted, never paraphrased away, in any context including titles/headers/quiz options.
ntshav (blood, #26, Critical); kev ua kom ntshav lo (shedding of blood, #40, Critical)	Direct lexical overlap with real Hmong animal-blood sacrifice/offering (fij tsiaj) practiced to appease ancestral/nature spirits.	Every occurrence anchored explicitly to Yexus Khetos and to the ib zaug xwb qualifier within the same sentence or immediately adjacent clause.
khoom fij domain (#27, #31, #41)	A single root (fij) must simultaneously bear three senses — OT repeatable animal sacrifice, Christ’s unique self-offering, and ethical/praise “living sacrifice” — plus avoid the fourth, forbidden sense (fij dab, spirit appeasement).	See §3 below (crowded neighborhood fencing); mandatory disambiguating modifier at every occurrence (khoom fij tsiaj / nws tus kheej khoom fij / khoom fij qhuas Vajtswv).
kev zam txim (forgiveness, #35, High)	Hmong customary ethics expects compensatory ritual/restitution for wrongdoing; gratuitous forgiveness-without-further-payment is culturally unfamiliar.	Teach explicitly: no further payment is required or possible; Christ’s sacrifice alone secures it.
ris tej kev txhaum coj mus fij (bear sins, #36, High); kev muab kev txhaum tshem tawm (putting away of sin, #37, High)	Risk of flattening into either ordinary Hmong burden-bearing idiom or shamanic scapegoat-transfer ritual.	Explicit teaching distinguishing substitutionary sin-bearing from both.

Doctrine 5 — The Danger of Apostasy and Warning Passages

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
kev tso kev ntseeg tseg / kev thim rov qab (ntawm Vajtswv) (falling away, #56, Critical)	This is the single highest-stakes term-cluster in the curriculum. Hmong culture’s default category for religious change is a bounded, ritually-marked “return to the ancestors’ customs” (hloov mus ua raws li kevcai qub / rov qab mus pehawm dab) — a familiar, lower-stakes pattern that could absorb and neutralize Hebrews’ far more severe, decisive, informed rejection of Christ.	Requires the most extensive teaching note in the whole curriculum, explicitly distinguishing (a) ordinary struggling/imperfect faith [not in view], (b) ordinary syncretistic backsliding [the culturally-available but wrong analogy], and (c) decisive, informed, final rejection after having tasted the heavenly gift [what the text actually warns against].
txhaum tim txhaum ntsheev (willful sin, #57, High); kev tsis ntseeg (unbelief, #58, Medium); lub siab tawv (hardening, #59, Medium — present/resistible sense, distinct from the Romans 11 completed-judgment sense)	Secondary members of the warning cluster; risk of under-distinguishing ordinary moral failure from the severity Hebrews intends.	Keep tied to the #56 teaching note; flag the ch.3 hardening sense as present/resistible, not the Romans 11 sense.
cov nplaim taws uas nqes los kub tag nrho (consuming fire, #63, High); kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath, #65, High, inherited)	Shares the Romans baseline’s spirit-anger collision (capricious, ritual-triggered, appeasable) with the additional apostasy-warning intensification.	Reinforce the Romans-established contrast: God’s wrath here is righteous, judicial, unappeasable by ritual — amplified, not altered, by the warning context.

Doctrine 6 — Faith of the Old Testament Saints

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
kev ntseeg / ntseeg (#66, Medium, inherited); kev cia siab (hope, #67, Low, inherited)	11:1 explicitly defines faith partly in terms of hope; if the two entries are generated independently without cross-reference, the definitional link is lost.	Any generation of 11:1 must retain the connective co-text linking kev ntseeg to kev cia siab.
kev ntseeg tas lub siab / lub hauv paus ruaj khov (assurance/substance, hypostasis, #68, Medium)	Dense philosophical term with no comprehension shortcut.	First-occurrence teaching gloss required each module, per §6 of the governing AI requirements convention.
suav / suav tias (reckon, #69, Critical, inherited)	Same verb as the Romans forensic-imputation entry, but 11:19 uses it for Abraham’s confident reasoning about resurrection power — a distinct sense that must not be conflated with justification-by-faith imputation.	Mandatory contextual note at 11:19 distinguishing this use from the Romans 4/5 forensic sense; never let the two senses silently merge in teaching material.
qhua thiab neeg tsiv teb tsaws chaw (strangers/exiles, #71, Low)	Strong positive cultural bridge (Hmong refugee/migration history) — an enrichment opportunity, not a caution.	Recommend using as a teaching amplifier, not merely a neutral gloss.

Doctrine 7 — Perseverance and Assurance

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
kev ua siab ntev (endurance, #60, Low, inherited); lub thav nyiaj (anchor, #111, Low-Medium); tus taug kev ua ntej (forerunner, #112, Low)	Mostly comprehension-level gaps (anchor = non-maritime culture) with no collision.	Illustrative notes sufficient; no doctrinal fencing required.
kev qhuab qhia / kev cai ntuas (fatherly discipline, #61, Medium-High)	Highest risk in this doctrine: Hmong traditional belief frames misfortune/suffering as punishment sent by displeased ancestors/spirits, remedied by ritual appeasement — the opposite relational valence from Hebrews 12:5-11’s discipline-as-evidence-of-loving-sonship. Note also that kev cai ntuas shares the kevcai root with the Law/baptism/washings cluster (see §3).	Explicit contrastive teaching required at every occurrence: God’s discipline is loving, formative, and evidence of genuine sonship — not punitive spirit-anger requiring appeasement. Prefer kev qhuab qhia as the primary gloss where a lighter kevcai-root footprint is desired.
cag ntawm kev daj siab (root of bitterness, #62, Low-Medium)	Comprehension-level idiom transfer.	No fencing needed.

Doctrine 8 — Access to God through Christ’s Blood

Available Hmong Terms	Weakness	Recommended Strategy
txav los ze (rau Vajtswv) (draw near/access, #75, Medium-High)	Risk of being heard as a spiritual technique or attainable achievement (comparable to ritual correctness granting nearness to spirits) rather than an already-secured standing.	Mandatory co-textual anchor to “through the blood of Christ” / “through the curtain, that is, his flesh” at every occurrence — never a bare txav los ze.
kev ua siab loj (los ntawm ntshav Yexus) (boldness, #76, Medium)	Risk of collapsing into ordinary social bravado if the parenthetical Christ-blood anchor is dropped.	Treat the parenthetical as structurally mandatory, not optional stylistic flourish.
pehawm / pab teev (worship, #77, High, inherited); tej kev paub zoo paub phem hauv lub siab (conscience, #78, Medium, inherited)	pehawm shares the exact verb used for ancestor/spirit veneration (pehawm dab); conscience-cleansing is the core passage’s central exegetical move (9:13-14, flesh→conscience).	Object of pehawm always stated (pehawm Vajtswv uas muaj txoj sia nyob); the flesh/conscience contrast in 9:13-14 must survive translation as an explicit internal/external distinction, not be smoothed into a single register.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary (Comprehension Gaps — No Native Hmong Equivalent)

These are cases where Hmong simply has no corresponding referent (architectural, botanical, cultural, or philosophical), as distinct from cases of collision with an existing competing concept (§3). The recommended strategy for all of these is illustrative/explanatory teaching notes, not lexical substitution, since there is no traditional-religion referent to collide with.

Concept	Registry ID	Gap Type	Recommended Approach
Tabernacle / Tent-sanctuary	#15	Architectural	Illustrate as “God’s meeting-tent with His people,” distinct from an ordinary dwelling tent.
Holy Place / Most Holy Place	#16	Architectural + shares dawb huv risk (see §3)	Illustrate as compartments of the meeting-tent; anchor teaching to God’s own holy dwelling, not a ritually-purified location.
Veil / Curtain	#17	Architectural	Illustrate function (barrier into God’s presence) before introducing 10:20’s dense typological identification with Christ’s flesh.
Ark of the Covenant	#18	Architectural/cultural object	Illustrate as a sacred chest housing covenant tokens; built on the already-fenced covenant term.
Cherubim	#9	Iconographic	Comprehension-only; reuse angel-term teaching discipline.
Hyssop	#39	Botanical	Descriptive paraphrase (“a small bushy plant the Jews used in their washing rites”); no doctrinal weight.
Tithe	#24	Cultural practice	Arithmetic explanation (“a tenth part”) suffices; not a native custom but easily taught.
Melchizedek / order of Melchizedek	#23	Typological/historical	Transliterate the proper name; dedicated teaching note for the king-priest typology (see §4).
Sabbath rest (sabbatismos)	#80	Theological-liturgical	Built on the already-transliterated Xanpatau; comprehension-level only.
Copy / Pattern / Shadow (typology)	#89	Abstract hermeneutical category	Illustrate with a concrete Hmong analogy (e.g., a tailor’s paper pattern vs. the finished garment) rather than attempting a lexical equivalent.
Testament-wordplay (9:16-17)	#47	Lexical-legal pun	Untranslatable at the lexical level; teaching note only (see Doctrine 3 above and §5 ranked risks).
Anchor (soul-metaphor)	#111	Maritime/cultural	Illustrative note; highland agrarian Hmong context is non-maritime.
Consummation of the Ages	#114	Eschatological-abstract	Descriptive paraphrase; comprehension gap only.
Milk / Solid Food (spiritual maturity metaphor)	#113	Metaphor transfer	Transfers cleanly via existing food-staple vocabulary (kua mis / mov nyoob); flagged here only for completeness, genuinely low-risk.

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Needing Fencing

Unlike §2, these are cases where a single Hmong lexical root or verb is called upon to bear multiple, doctrinally distinct referents simultaneously, at least one of which is a live competing concept in Hmong traditional religion. Each cluster below requires a documented, mandatory disambiguation strategy carried forward into every Phase 2 generation pass.

3.1 The dawb huv (“holy/pure”) cluster

Bears: sanctification (#87, kev raug ua kom dawb huv), cleanse/purify (#34, ntxuav kom dawb huv), Holy Place / Most Holy Place (#16), plus the pre-existing folk sense of ritual purity from spirit-contamination. Fencing strategy: every occurrence of dawb huv vocabulary must be taught as pointing toward Christ’s decisive, internal, once-for-all work (core passage 9:13-14), never as an achievable ritual state. This is the single most reused root in the entire term set and needs the tightest discipline.

3.2 The fij (“offer/sacrifice”) cluster

Bears: general sacrifice/offering (#27, khoom fij), OT repeatable animal sacrifice (khoom fij tsiaj), Christ’s unique self-offering (#31, nws tus kheej khoom fij), ethical/praise “living sacrifice” (#41, khoom fij qhuas Vajtswv; Romans baseline #64), and the forbidden fourth sense, spirit-appeasement offerings (fij dab). Fencing strategy: no bare, unmodified fij may appear in doctrinally load-bearing content. Every occurrence must carry its disambiguating modifier. This is a four-way fence, the most crowded neighborhood in the letter.

3.3 The kevcai (“custom/rite”) root cluster

Bears: Law (#53, Txoj Kevcai — mandatory qualifier), Christian baptism (#86, kev cai raus dej — singular, once-for-all), OT ceremonial washings (#55, tej kev ntxuav raws li kevcai Yudas — plural, repeatable), and fatherly discipline (#61, kev cai ntuas — one of two glosses offered). Fencing strategy: these four senses must never be allowed to bleed into one another. The plural/singular distinction between #86 and #55 is structurally the same distinction the baseline Romans package already enforces for baptism; Hebrews adds two further members to the cluster (Law, discipline) that were not present in Romans, raising the total fence count from two to four. Recommend preferring kev qhuab qhia over kev cai ntuas for discipline in contexts already dense with other kevcai-root terms, to reduce cluster load in a single passage (e.g., ch.9-10 transitioning into ch.12).

3.4 The hwjchim (“power”) cluster

Bears: God’s power (mandatory Vajtswv hwjchim qualifier, #107, inherited), and — uniquely in Hebrews — the devil’s power over death (#11, (tus muaj) hwjchim ntawm txoj kev tuag (dab ntxwg nyoog)), a flagged exception to the mandatory qualifier rule. Fencing strategy: this is the one place in the whole Hmong Bible curriculum (Romans or Hebrews) where the otherwise-universal Vajtswv hwjchim qualifier must be deliberately withheld and replaced with an equally explicit devil-marking. Automated generation is at high risk of mechanically applying the Romans-trained pattern and producing “Vajtswv hwjchim ntawm txoj kev tuag” at 2:14 — which would attribute death’s dominion to God rather than the devil, a serious doctrinal inversion. This requires a hard-coded exception rule, not merely a note.

3.5 The pehawm (“worship/venerate”) verb

Bears: worship of God (#77, inherited) vs. the identical verb used for pehawm dab (ancestor/spirit veneration). Fencing strategy: already documented in the Romans baseline; Hebrews reuses it with equal weight (9:14, 12:28, 13:10) and equal risk. Object always stated.

3.6 The ntsuj plig (“spirit/soul”) cluster

Bears: the Holy Spirit (#5, mandatory Vaj-prefixed Vaj Ntsuj Plig) vs. the human anthropological spirit (#7, bare ntsuj plig, 12:23 “spirits of the righteous made perfect”). Fencing strategy: identical to Romans; the Vaj prefix is the entire fence. Hebrews’ 12:23 usage is a legitimate anthropological use and must remain unprefixed, but this correctness is itself risky precisely because it looks like a permissible exception — reinforce that the fence is the prefix, not the referent’s holiness.

3.7 The suav / suav tias (“reckon”) verb

Bears: forensic imputation (Romans #40/#26, Critical) vs. Abraham’s confident reasoning about resurrection power (#69, Hebrews 11:19). Fencing strategy: same verb, two theologically distinct operations. A contextual note at 11:19 is mandatory; this is not a case for a different Hmong word (none is preferable) but for disciplined co-text.

3.8 The dab (“spirit”) family

Bears: idol (Romans baseline dab mlom), the devil (#10, dab ntxwg nyoog), and the broader, undifferentiated class of spirits addressed through appeasement in folk religion. Fencing strategy: dab ntxwg nyoog is doctrinally accurate but must never be treated with the culturally-default appeasement posture; 2:14’s claim that Christ destroys this being requires confrontation/defeat framing, explicitly contrasted with the negotiation/appeasement posture applied to other dab.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Greek	Decision	Rationale
Melchizedek	Μελχισέδεκ	Transliterate — Melexixedes	Proper name; no theological content is lost by transliteration, and the typological argument is carried by teaching notes, not by the name itself.
Sabbath (rest)	σαββατισμός	Transliterate (reuse established Xanpatau)	Already a fixed, safe Hmong Christian loanword from prior Bible tradition; no reason to re-paraphrase.
High Priest / Priest	ἀρχιερεύς / ἱερεύς	Paraphrase — tus Tuam Pov Thawj / pov thawj	A transliterated loanword would be theologically opaque and would forfeit the disambiguating power of a native periphrasis that can be actively taught against txiv neeb; this mirrors the Romans-baseline precedent of rejecting loanwords for hilastērion and baptisma in favor of teachable native compounds.
Propitiation / Mercy Seat	ἱλαστήριον	Paraphrase (inherited) — qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum	Already fixed in the Romans baseline for the identical reason: an opaque loanword would prevent the mandatory contrast-teaching against shamanic sacrificial appeasement. Reused here for both the theological sense (2:17) and the literal-object sense (9:5), with a note bridging the two.
Covenant	διαθήκη	Paraphrase — tsab cog lus	No suitable transliteration exists that would communicate anything; the paraphrase is chosen to allow a positive cultural bridge (clan alliance-pacts) while being fenced against the promise-term (§1, Doctrine 3).
Diathēkē legal-testament wordplay	διαθήκη (legal sense)	Neither — flagged, unresolved	This is the one case in the entire letter where no lexical decision (transliteration or paraphrase) resolves the gap; the Greek pun exploits a double meaning tsab cog lus does not share. Resolved only by an explicit teaching note (retained [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED]).
Baptism (Christian rite)	βάπτισμα	Paraphrase (inherited) — kev cai raus dej	Consistent with the Romans-baseline rejection of a transliterated loanword (e.g. “npativ” style), which would sidestep rather than resolve the kevcai collision.
Ceremonial washings (plural)	βαπτισμοί	Paraphrase, qualified — tej kev ntxuav raws li kevcai (Yudas)	Deliberately NOT the same string as the singular baptism term, to prevent implying Christian baptism is one of many repeatable rites.
Angel	ἄγγελος	Paraphrase (established term) — tus timtswv	Already a stable, existing Hmong Christian hymnody term; no transliteration attempted or needed.
Devil / Satan	διάβολος	Paraphrase (established term) — dab ntxwg nyoog	Existing, accurate Hmong Christian term; transliteration would be both unnecessary and would lose the term’s already-correct sense.
Hyssop	ὕσσωπος	Paraphrase/descriptive gloss — no attempted transliteration	A one-off botanical reference with zero doctrinal weight; a descriptive gloss (“a small bushy plant the Jews used…”) communicates function without requiring readers to learn an opaque new word.
Parrēsia	παρρησία	Paraphrase — kev ua siab loj (los ntawm ntshav Yexus)	No single Hmong word carries “Christ-secured confidence before God”; the periphrasis plus mandatory parenthetical anchor is preferred over either a bare native word (too weak) or a loanword (opaque).
Hypostasis (11:1)	ὑπόστασις	Paraphrase, dual-option — kev ntseeg tas lub siab / lub hauv paus ruaj khov	A dense Greek philosophical term with no single native equivalent; offering a compound periphrasis with a first-occurrence teaching gloss is preferred over a loanword, consistent with the register requirement (formal/literary, not academic-loanword-laden).

General principle observed: Proper nouns and already-fixed liturgical loanwords are transliterated; doctrinally load-bearing common nouns and verbs are paraphrased using native compounds specifically because paraphrase (unlike an opaque loanword) permits the mandatory contrast-teaching this Language Package requires at every Critical/High risk term. This mirrors and extends the identical policy already established in the Romans baseline for hilastērion and baptisma.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by (a) doctrinal centrality, (b) severity of potential inversion if mishandled, and (c) likelihood of accidental qualifier-drop or cluster-bleed in automated Phase 2 generation.

Rank	Ambiguity	Doctrine(s)	Risk Tier	Why It Ranks Here
1	ib zaug xwb (once-for-all) qualifier dropped from any blood/sacrifice/death reference	4	Critical	The letter’s central argument literally depends on this adverb; its loss re-enables the exact shamanic-appeasement misreading the whole book exists to prevent.
2	ntshav (blood) unanchored to Yexus Khetos or to the once-for-all qualifier	4, 8	Critical	Direct lexical overlap with real Hmong animal-blood spirit-appeasement sacrifice; the single most visceral collision point in the letter.
3	tus Tuam Pov Thawj / pov thawj blended with txiv neeb vocabulary or posture	2	Critical	Would relocate Christ’s unique heavenly priesthood into the shamanic ritual-mediator category, the letter’s other central collision point.
4	kev tso kev ntseeg tseg (apostasy) flattened into ordinary rov qab mus pehawm dab religious-reversion pattern	5	Critical	The culturally-available analogy is real, familiar, and lower-stakes than what the text describes; without the most extensive teaching note in the curriculum, hearers will systematically under-read the warning’s severity.
5	tsab cog lus (covenant) conflated with lus cog tseg (promise)	3	Critical	Collapses a two-party, death-sealed pact into a one-sided pledge, undermining the entire New-Covenant-vs-Old argument structure of ch.7-10.
6	fij domain (khoom fij) used unmodified across its four competing senses	2, 4	Critical	Four-way semantic overload (general/OT-animal/Christ’s-self-offering/praise) with a forbidden fifth sense (fij dab) one modifier-drop away.
7	dawb huv cluster (sanctification/cleanse/Holy Place) read as achievable ritual-purity state	2, 4	High	Central to the core passage’s flesh-vs-conscience argument (9:13-14); a ritual-technique reading directly undercuts the passage’s climactic point.
8	hwjchim mandatory-qualifier exception at 2:14 (devil’s power) mechanically overridden to “Vajtswv hwjchim”	1	Critical	A pattern-matching failure here produces an outright doctrinal inversion (attributing death’s dominion to God), the most severe mechanical (as opposed to conceptual) risk identified in this analysis.
9	kev qhuab qhia / kev cai ntuas (fatherly discipline) read through the ancestor-spirit-punishment/appeasement frame	7	High	Inverts the relational valence Hebrews 12 intends (loving evidence of sonship) into its cultural opposite (angry spirit requiring appeasement).
10	Diathēkē legal-testament wordplay (9:16-17) silently smoothed over rather than flagged	3	Medium-High	Not a collision but a structural translation gap; if silently resolved rather than taught, the writer’s actual argument (death activates the covenant, as with a will) disappears entirely from the Hmong text.
11	suav / suav tias (reckon) — Hebrews 11:19’s confident-reasoning sense merged with Romans’ forensic-imputation sense	6	Critical (inherited)	Risk of doctrinal blending between two distinct theological operations sharing one Hmong verb.
12	txav los ze (draw near/access) heard as an achievable technique rather than Christ-secured standing	8	Medium-High	Central to Doctrine 8; without the mandatory blood-anchor, “access” risks being reinterpreted as ritual attainment.
13	tej kev ntxuav raws li kevcai (Yudas) (plural OT washings) reusing the singular Christian baptism term unqualified	3, 4	High	Would imply Christian baptism is merely one repeatable purification rite among many, directly undermining Doctrine 4’s once-for-all logic.
14	kevcai root cluster overload across Law/baptism/washings/discipline in a single dense passage (e.g., ch.9-10 into ch.12)	3, 4, 7	High	Cumulative cluster-bleed risk distinct from any single term’s risk; recommend monitoring co-occurrence density per lesson unit.
15	tus timtswv (angel) read against the dense Hmong mediating-spirit population without the “created/worshipping/never-worshiped” contrast	1	High	Lower doctrinal stakes than ranks 1-9 but affects the letter’s opening argument (ch.1-2) and recurs at 12:22, 13:2.

---

6. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2 Enforcement

1. Treat ib zaug xwb / tas li (#29) and its contrast pole ntau zaus (#30) as structurally mandatory qualifiers on the same enforcement tier as the Romans baseline’s Vajtswv hwjchim and raug suav tias ncaj ncees — never omitted, in any context.
2. Build a hard-coded exception rule for hwjchim at Hebrews 2:14 (#11) so automated generation cannot mechanically apply the otherwise-universal Vajtswv hwjchim qualifier to the devil’s power over death.
3. Require the four-way disambiguating modifier on every occurrence of the fij sacrificial domain (#27, #31, #41, plus the forbidden fij dab sense) — no bare fij in doctrinally load-bearing content.
4. Require the “apostasy vs. ordinary religious reversion” teaching note (#56) at every occurrence of the falling-away term-cluster in chapters 3, 6, 10, and 12, given its ranking as the highest-stakes comprehension-plus-collision risk outside the atonement/priesthood cluster.
5. Retain the [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] flags on the diathēkē legal-testament wordplay (#47) and the ceremonial-washings plural (#55) exactly as logged in the term registry; do not resolve either by inventing an alternate permanent rendering.
6. Monitor kevcai-root cluster density (Law / baptism / washings / discipline) per lesson unit and prefer kev qhuab qhia over kev cai ntuas for discipline where cluster load is already high in the same passage.
7. All findings in this document are advisory constraints for Phase 2 generation; none override or contradict the fixed Romans-baseline TM entries reused here, and any new permanent renderings proposed on the basis of this analysis require formal TM-revision review before adoption.

Full-book coverage confirmation: All 13 chapters of Hebrews were reviewed for this linguistic gap analysis (chapters 1-13, core passage 9:11-28 as theological anchor). No chapter was silently omitted; chapters contributing comparatively fewer high-risk ambiguities (e.g., ch. 13’s closing exhortations) are reflected above through their contribution to the fij/praise-sacrifice and kevcai/discipline clusters rather than through dedicated top-tier ranking entries.