James — Phase 1 Step 8: Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose and Scope

This document identifies where Hmong (RPA, White Hmong/Hmong Daw) vocabulary is missing, overloaded/crowded, or structurally ambiguous relative to the theological load James places on it, across all five chapters, with the core passage (James 2:14-26) treated as the theological anchor rather than the scope boundary. It governs alongside — and never contradicts — analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json. All Critical/High terms already fixed in the Hmong Romans Language Package Baseline v1.0 (assets/translation_memory.json) are reused exactly; this analysis only evaluates NEW pressure James places on shared lexical space and on newly surfaced James-only vocabulary.

Per the full-book-coverage mandate, every chapter of James has been reviewed for gap-analysis purposes even where a chapter’s primary contribution is reuse of already-fenced Romans-baseline vocabulary rather than new gaps.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Hmong Term(s)	Weaknesses / Gap	Recommended Strategy
D1. Faith and Works	kev ntseeg (faith, inherited); tej haujlwm (works, registry id 38); ua kom ncaj ncees / raug suav tias ncaj ncees (justify, inherited id 12); kev ntseeg uas tuag lawm (dead faith, id 39)	(a) kev ntseeg is a single lexeme covering both bare intellectual assent (2:19, demons “believe”) and saving, working trust — Hmong has no morphological way to mark the difference without co-text. (b) ncaj ncees already defaults to an achieved moral quality in village/clan custom, so James 2:21,24,25 risks reading as native works-righteousness confirmation rather than evidentiary vindication of an already-imputed status. (c) tej haujlwm (works) sits dangerously close to the Romans-forbidden ua zoo (“do good”) framing if a translator paraphrases loosely.	Never let kev ntseeg stand unanchored in 2:14-26 — always co-text with either “hais tias muaj” (claims to have) for the false/dead sense or an explicit demonstrated-action clause for the living sense. Mandatory adjacent harmonizing note at every occurrence of raug suav tias ncaj ncees in ch.2 referencing Romans 3:28/4:5 (registry id 43). Never substitute ua zoo for tej haujlwm.
D2. Trials and the Testing of Faith	kev raug swm sim / kev sim kom paub tias tseeb (trial, id 23 — NEW); kev raug ntxias kom ua txhaum / kev ntshaw phem (temptation, id 24 — NEW); kev ua siab ntev (endurance, inherited id 18)	Hmong traditional explanatory framework for suffering is predominantly spirit-displeasure or impersonal fate (hmoov), not God-permitted, purpose-bearing testing that a believer should “count as joy” (1:2). No single native lexeme carries “a difficulty engineered to prove/refine,” so two periphrastic terms had to be coined, and they must never merge with the hmoov-fatalism vocabulary already permanently forbidden for election/predestination in the Romans baseline.	Keep #23 (external trial) and #24 (internal temptation) lexically separate at every occurrence — this is the single most consequential fence in ch.1, since collapsing them makes 1:13 (“God tempts no one”) read as self-contradictory. Attach a standing teaching note distinguishing purposeful divine testing from fatalistic misfortune.
D3. Wisdom from Above	tswvyim (ntawm Vajtswv) (id 26 — NEW); tswvyim ntiajteb / tswvyim raws li kev xav ntawm neeg xwb / tswvyim los ntawm dab (id 27 — NEW)	tswvyim in ordinary usage includes counsel obtained through elder consultation, ancestral precedent, or divinatory practice — i.e., wisdom itself is not a neutral term in Hmong religious life. Naming a negative wisdom category as dab-sourced (3:15) sits directly inside shamanic (txiv neeb) territory, since spirit-consultation is popularly understood to be exactly this.	tswvyim must never appear bare in a doctrinal register; always qualify as tswvyim ntawm Vajtswv when positive. The dab-sourced category must always be paired with the positive alternative in the same teaching unit (never presented alone) and explicitly framed as a description of a fruit-pattern (3:16-17), not an accusation against any living practitioner.
D4. Favoritism and the Poor	kev saib ntsej muag (favoritism, id 36 — NEW, negative counterpart of inherited tsis saib ntsej muag); Txoj Kevcai Loj ntawm Vajtswv (royal law, id 37 — NEW); tus pluag / tus nplua nuj (id 29 — NEW)	Low collision risk on the socioeconomic vocabulary itself; the risk is entirely inherited from the shared Txoj Kevcai root (see §2.1 below) plus the danger of treating 2:10-11’s “guilty of breaking the whole law” (id 69) as a minor rhetorical flourish rather than James’s serious point that partiality is law-breaking, not merely bad manners.	Retain the mandatory Txoj Kevcai qualifier without exception inside “royal law.” Teach 2:1-13 as a single unit so favoritism is diagnosed as sin (txhaum), not etiquette.
D5. Taming the Tongue	tus nplaig (id 45 — NEW); tswj tus nplaig (id 46 — NEW); qhuas Vajtswv / foom tsis zoo rau (luag) (id 47 — NEW)	Hmong culture has live, believed-efficacious ritual blessing/cursing speech-acts (foom koob hmoov, foom tsis zoo/foom tsis zoo rau), sometimes invoking ancestors as guarantors of the utterance’s power. James 3:9-10’s point — that the same instrument blesses God and curses image-bearers — risks being heard as a statement about ritual-speech potency rather than moral inconsistency.	Keep qhuas (praise/bless toward God) and foom (invocation-type blessing/cursing toward people) terminologically distinct as already structured in id 47; never let foom co-occur with koob hmoov in this context, since koob hmoov remains permanently reserved for ordinary material blessing per the Romans baseline.
D6. Worldliness versus Friendship with God	lub ntiajteb (world, inherited id 15, extended sense); kev nyob sib raug zoo/hlub ntiajteb / ua yeeb ncuab rau Vajtswv (id 51 — NEW); cov uas tsis ncaj ncees rau Vajtswv... zoo li tus poj niam tsis ncaj ncees (spiritual adultery, id 52 — NEW); dab Ntxwg Nyoog (devil, id 54 — NEW); the disputed πνεῦμα of 4:5 (id 6)	Three converging pressures: (1) kosmos must carry both a neutral “created/human world” sense (elsewhere reused from Romans) and a new hostile-value-system sense (1:27, 4:4) with no lexical marker distinguishing them; (2) dab Ntxwg Nyoog reuses the generic, live, feared dab root shared with ancestor/nature-spirit vocabulary; (3) the textually disputed Holy-Spirit-or-human-spirit referent at 4:5 has no safe default rendering at all.	Always supply a co-text signal for the hostile sense of kosmos (“lub ntiajteb no cov kev xav phem” or equivalent framing), never bare. Maintain explicit catechesis that Ntxwg Nyoog is a single, already-defeated, personal enemy, never to be propitiated — categorically distinct from ancestor/nature dab. James 4:5 must remain an open [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] item; do not resolve toward either Vaj Ntsuj Plig or bare ntsuj plig without theologian sign-off (see §4 ranked risk #2).
D7. Prayer and Healing	thov Vajtswv (id 57 — NEW); pleev roj rau (tus mob) (anointing, id 56 — NEW); kho kom zoo (physical-healing sense of σῴζω, id 55 — NEW, flagged); muaj zog kawg thiab ua tau tiag tiag (id 59 — NEW)	Every element of James 5:13-18 borders the shamanic healing-ritual domain: bare thov is the identical verb used for petitioning ancestors/spirits (thov dab, thov poj koob yawm txwv); oil-anointing resembles ritual objects used in ua neeb kho mob (spirit-mediated healing); and reusing the Romans-baseline kev cawm dim for physical healing would either dilute the eternal-salvation term or imply healing is automatically guaranteed like an atonement-grade rescue.	thov must never appear bare — always thov Vajtswv, following the Romans pehawm-pattern. Retain kho kom zoo as the physical-healing gloss, kept distinct from kev cawm dim, with a standing teaching note on the shared σῴζω root and the non-magical, non-ritual-technique status of the oil (v.15 credits prayer and the Lord, not the oil, per id 56). This remains the top flagged item pending formal TM-revision confirmation.
D8. Patience and the Lord’s Return	ua siab ntev tos (patience, id 42 — NEW, distinct from inherited hypomonē/endurance id 18); hnub uas tus Tswv Yexus rov qab los (id 61 — NEW); tus Txiav Txim twb sawv ntsug ntawm lub qhov rooj lawm (id 62 — NEW)	Comprehension-level gaps only (no direct traditional-religion collision): the farmer/harvest waiting metaphor (5:7) is agrarian-accessible, but the distinction between hypomonē (endurance under active pressure) and makrothymia (forbearance while waiting for someone/something) has no natural lexical split in Hmong — both map onto the siab ntev idiom family.	Preserve the two-phrase split (kev ua siab ntev vs ua siab ntev tos) established in the glossary even though they share an idiom root; teach both as grounded in the certainty of Christ’s return, not stoic resignation.
D9. Confession and Restoration	lees kev txhaum rau ib leeg (id 58 — NEW); npog tau ntau yam kev txhaum (id 63 — NEW); tsis txhob cog lus twv (oath, id 60 — NEW); ntsuj plig (anthropological, 2:26, 5:20; id 5)	(1) Mutual confession must be fenced off from shamanic confession-to-intermediary practice; (2) oath-taking customs invoke ancestors/spirits as guarantors with curse-consequences, so a bare prohibition risks being heard as either a restated existing taboo or (if under-taught) too weak to address the actual practice; (3) ntsuj plig in 2:26 and 5:20 is anthropological and must never receive the Vaj prefix.	Teach 5:16’s confession as horizontal, mutual, and restorative within the believing community, explicitly not a priestly/shamanic mediated confession. Teach 5:12’s oath prohibition as a positive call to simple truthful speech that replaces guarantee-formulas, not merely a re-flagged version of an existing “don’t swear by spirits” taboo. Confirm ntsuj plig at 2:26/5:20 never triggers the Vaj-prefix rule reserved for the Holy Spirit.

---

2. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

James places unusually dense new pressure on several lexical fields the Romans baseline had already flagged, plus opens two entirely new crowded fields. Each cluster below lists every competing sense that must be kept distinct within the same curriculum, with the fencing mechanism.

2.1 The kevcai / Law field (Critical — inherited pressure intensified)

James uses the Law/custom root in four distinct compounds within two chapters, more concentration than anywhere in Romans:

Compound	Reference	Rendering	Fence
Mosaic/divine Law generally	2:9-11, 4:11	Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes)	Mandatory qualifier, inherited (id 9)
Law of liberty	1:25, 2:12	Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv) uas pub kev ywj pheej	Qualifier retained inside compound (id 33)
Royal law	2:8	Txoj Kevcai Loj ntawm Vajtswv	Qualifier retained (id 37)
“Religion” (θρησκεία)	1:26-27	txoj kev teev hawm Vajtswv... — never kev cai dab qhuas	Root-swap avoidance, new forbidden substitution (id 34)

Fencing requirement: the qualifier (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes) or (ntawm Vajtswv) is structurally non-negotiable in every one of the first three compounds, with zero exceptions even in space-constrained contexts (per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2.2, inherited). The fourth item is a root-avoidance case, not a qualifier case: θρησκεία must be built on teev hawm Vajtswv vocabulary, never on the kevcai root at all, because “kev cai dab qhuas” is the standing Hmong gloss for “religion” and literally means “spirit-worship customs” — using it here would brand Christian practice itself as spirit-worship.

2.2 The dab (spirit) field (High/Critical — newly crowded in James)

James activates the dab root in three semantically distinct ways not simultaneously present in Romans:

1. Demons (2:19) — cov dab, real malevolent spirit-beings who “believe and shudder.”
2. Demonic-sourced wisdom (3:15) — tswvyim los ntawm dab, a quality/origin descriptor, not a being.
3. The Devil (4:7) — dab Ntxwg Nyoog, the singular defeated arch-enemy.

All three reuse the same live, feared, ritually-engaged root that anchors Hmong traditional religion’s spirit-world. Fencing requirement: teaching material must state explicitly, at first occurrence of each, that (a) these dab are real but categorically inferior and terrified subjects of Vajtswv, never to be consulted, propitiated, or negotiated with as in shamanic practice; (b) dab Ntxwg Nyoog is one specific, personal, already-defeated being, not a class-term for ancestor or nature spirits; (c) “wisdom of demonic origin” (3:15) is a description of a fruit-pattern in a person’s conduct, never an accusation leveled at a specific living shaman or elder.

2.3 The siab (liver/heart, seat of will) field (Low collision, but structurally overloaded)

James uses the siab-based idiom family for at least five distinct concepts: double-mindedness (ob lub siab, id 28), will of God (Vajtswv lub siab nyiam, inherited id 20), humility (txo nws tus kheej, id 53 — note: this one deliberately avoids siab compounding), endurance/patience (kev ua siab ntev / ua siab ntev tos, ids 18/42), and moral awareness generally (inherited “conscience” from Romans, not reused verbatim in James but part of the same idiom family). No traditional-religion collision exists here, but the register risk is real: overuse of one idiom family across five distinct doctrines in a single short letter can flatten conceptual distinctions for hearers unless each compound is introduced with its own first-occurrence gloss per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §6.

2.4 The thov (petition) field (High — newly activated by James, absent from Romans)

Romans never required a general “prayer” term at this density; James 5:13-18 makes thov load-bearing six times in six verses. Bare thov is the identical verb used in traditional practice for petitioning ancestors and spirits (thov dab, thov poj koob yawm txwv). Fencing requirement: thov must never appear without its object Vajtswv stated in the same clause, exactly following the Romans-baseline pehawm object-anchoring convention (pehawm Vajtswv, never bare pehawm).

2.5 The ncaj ncees / justification field (Critical — direct tension with the Romans baseline itself)

This is James’s single most important crowded field, and it is crowded not against Hmong traditional religion but against the curriculum’s own prior baseline. Romans fixed raug suav tias ncaj ncees as the forensic, imputed-righteousness rendering and permanently forbade any works-as-ground framing (ua zoo forbidden at Romans 4:5). James 2:21,24,25 places the identical Hmong verb phrase in a context (“a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”) that, read in isolation, appears to reverse that prohibition. See ranked risk #1 in §4 below.

2.6 The ntsuj plig / spirit field (Critical — disambiguation gap widened by James)

Romans already required strict separation between Vaj Ntsuj Plig (Holy Spirit, always Vaj-prefixed) and bare ntsuj plig (anthropological spirit/soul, never prefixed). James widens this field in two ways: (1) 2:26 uses the anthropological sense in a doctrinally load-bearing analogy (faith without works is like a body without spirit/breath — dead), where an accidental Vaj-prefix would create the nonsensical and false claim that a body lacking the Holy Spirit is the analogy’s referent; (2) 4:5 introduces a disputed textual referent with no safe default at all. See ranked risk #2.

2.7 Missing vocabulary (true gaps, not crowding)

Unlike the crowded fields above, the following concepts have no existing Hmong lexeme or fixed phrase and required outright coinage in the core glossary, with lower collision risk but real comprehension-gap risk:

• Trial vs. temptation split (ids 23/24) — no native single-word pair exists; both are periphrastic coinages.
• Crown of life (id 30) — victor’s-wreath imagery is not part of Hmong material culture; requires a comprehension gloss (e.g., analogy to a chief’s or victor’s headdress) rather than a lexical fix.
• Olive-tree-style unfamiliar-referent problem does not recur in James, but an analogous case is the teacher’s stricter judgment (3:1) and bridle/bit imagery (3:3) — bridles are agriculturally known via horse/ox use in Hmong highland contexts, so this is a comprehension-level gap only, not a true missing-vocabulary gap.
• “Effective, powerful” prayer (id 59, ἰσχύς-root) — no gap in availability, but a deliberate avoidance decision (see §3) to keep it clear of the hwjchim/dynamis qualifier convention.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Book title “James”	Transliterate provisionally as Yakaunpaus (pending confirmation against the established Hmong Bible tradition’s actual book title)	Follows the same proper-name transliteration convention already used for Povlauj (Paul) in the Romans baseline and for Yauj (Job), Eliyas (Elijah), Lahaj (Rahab) within this package; log as [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm against Vaj Lug Kub Npaiv Npaum / HWB existing book-title rendering] per §9 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
Proper names: Job, Elijah, Rahab	Transliterate, ids 64-66	Consistent with existing Hmong Bible tradition’s general practice of transliterating rather than paraphrasing proper names; already logged for TM-revision confirmation in the core glossary.
hilastērion-style loanword avoidance pattern	Not applicable in James (no propitiation/atonement-sacrifice term occurs in this letter)	Noted for completeness — James contains no direct atonement vocabulary; the Romans-fixed qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum is not reused here and no new coinage is needed.
daimonia (demons)	Paraphrase using existing native term dab, not a transliteration or loanword	dab is the accurate, already-existing referent (per registry id 41); a transliterated loanword would be opaque and would forfeit the necessary contrast-teaching against shamanic engagement with dab.
diabolos (Devil)	Paraphrase using existing compound dab Ntxwg Nyoog, not a bare transliteration (“Diabolau” or similar)	Ntxwg Nyoog is the settled, already-used Hmong Christian designation; inventing a transliterated alternative would fragment existing catechetical usage.
sophia (wisdom)	Paraphrase using existing native term tswvyim, always qualified	A loanword is unnecessary and would create an artificial register gap; the native term is comprehensible and only needs anchoring, not replacement.
σῴζω physical-healing sense (5:15)	Paraphrase, kho kom zoo, deliberately NOT reusing the Romans-fixed kev cawm dim loan-compound	A transliterated or borrowed soteriological term would either dilute eternal salvation’s gravity or wrongly imply healing is guaranteed on the same terms as the atonement; flagged for confirmation (id 55).
ἰσχύς “powerful” (5:16, id 59)	Paraphrase, muaj zog kawg thiab ua tau tiag tiag, deliberately NOT using hwjchim	Avoids triggering the mandatory Vajtswv hwjchim qualifier convention that governs δύναμις/dynamis specifically; ἰσχύς is a distinct Greek root and does not carry the same shamanic-power collision, so a plain-strength paraphrase is both accurate and safer.
Abba-style retained-loanword pattern (Romans 8:15)	Not applicable in James — no Aramaic address term occurs in this letter	Noted for completeness only.
parousia (coming of the Lord, 5:7-8)	Paraphrase, hnub uas tus Tswv Yexus rov qab los (the day the Lord Jesus returns), not a transliteration	No existing Hmong Christian transliteration tradition for parousia exists comparable to Yexus Khetos; a full descriptive phrase is standard practice for eschatological technical terms in existing Hmong Bible usage and avoids an opaque, untaught loanword.

General rule derived: James introduces no new transliterated loanwords beyond proper names. Every new theological concept is handled by paraphrase/periphrasis built on existing, already-fenced Hmong vocabulary (extending the Romans-baseline pattern), which keeps the register consistent but increases the burden on co-text and qualifier discipline rather than on vocabulary invention — this is the central linguistic characteristic of the James Language Package relative to Romans.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × collision/ambiguity strength × likelihood of occurring unflagged in ordinary curriculum generation).

1. James 2:24 “justified by works, not by faith alone” vs. the Romans-fixed forensic raug suav tias ncaj ncees. The single highest risk in the entire letter: the identical TM-fixed phrase for justification is reused in a clause that, absent a mandatory adjacent harmonizing note, reads as a direct reversal of Romans 3:28/4:5’s sola fide teaching. Registry ids 12, 13, 38, 39, 43 all converge here. No automated-review bypass permitted; mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence.

2. James 4:5’s disputed πνεῦμα referent (human spirit vs. Holy Spirit). Because the Romans baseline enforces an absolute lexical wall between Vaj Ntsuj Plig (never for humans) and bare ntsuj plig (never for the divine Person), an incorrect resolution in either direction produces a doctrinally false statement, not merely an infelicitous one. This is the only term in either curriculum with no safe default rendering at all; it must remain an open flag pending theologian review of the underlying textual/interpretive question itself, not just the translation.

3. James 2:26 “the body without spirit/breath is dead” — anthropological ntsuj plig in a proof-illustration for dead faith. A single missed disambiguation (accidentally applying the Vaj prefix, or conversely under-teaching why it is absent here) would either falsely claim a body lacks the Holy Spirit or weaken the force of the dead-faith analogy that is the core passage’s thesis illustration.

4. tej haujlwm (works) drifting toward the forbidden ua zoo framing. Because Romans permanently forbids ua zoo as a description of the ground of justification, any loose paraphrase of James 2:14-26’s “works” using ua zoo-adjacent language (e.g., “ua tej yam zoo” as a casual gloss) would silently reintroduce the exact works-righteousness error the Romans baseline was built to exclude — this risk is heightened precisely because James’s chapter is about works, making the forbidden vocabulary tempting to reach for in generated prose.

5. James 5:14-15’s anointing-and-prayer-of-faith unit vs. shamanic healing ritual (ua neeb kho mob). Three simultaneous collision points (oil as ritual object, elders as ritual specialists, prayer as efficacious formula) converge in two verses; under-teaching any one of the three risks the whole unit being assimilated into an existing, structurally similar ritual-healing framework.

6. James 3:15 “demonic” wisdom vs. shamanic spirit-consultation. High risk not because the doctrine is unclear but because of pastoral/social fallout potential: an unqualified or de-contextualized rendering could be heard as (or weaponized as) a direct accusation against specific living relatives/elders who practice txiv neeb consultation, rather than as an abstract fruit-of-character diagnostic.

7. James 1:27’s “pure religion” vs. the standing Hmong gloss for “religion” (kev cai dab qhuas). A single default-dictionary substitution here would literally brand Christian practice as “spirit-worship customs” — the same root-collision the Romans baseline already flagged for “Law,” but newly activated for an entirely different English source word (θρησκεία) that a generation system might not recognize as pre-flagged.

8. lub ntiajteb (world) carrying both the Romans-inherited neutral sense and James’s new hostile-value-system sense within the same short letter (1:27 vs. 4:4). Lower doctrinal stakes than items 1-7 but high frequency risk: because the word is reused unmarked from the Romans baseline, a generation system may fail to recognize that James requires an additional disambiguating co-text not present in the original TM entry.

9. James 5:12’s oath prohibition vs. traditional spirit-invoked oath customs. Risk is under- or over-teaching: presenting it as merely “don’t swear by spirits” undershoots James’s actual point (radical simple truthfulness replacing all guarantee-formulas), while presenting it with excessive supernatural framing overshoots and misses the everyday-speech-ethics target.

10. James 3:9’s “bless God / curse people” vs. live ritual blessing-and-cursing speech-acts (foom koob hmoov / foom tsis zoo). Lower doctrinal centrality than items above, but a real risk that hearers will process the verse as a statement about ritual-speech potency (“the tongue has power to bless/curse,” understood magically) rather than James’s actual point about moral/behavioral inconsistency.

---

5. Recommendations for TM-Revision Review Queue

The following items from this analysis require formal TM-revision review before any Critical/High rendering here is treated as permanent, per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2 rule 4 and §9:

1. Resolution (or continued open-flag status) of James 4:5’s disputed πνεῦμα referent — theologian + native-speaker review, no default rendering to be assigned unilaterally.
2. Confirmation of Yakaunpaus (or the correct existing Hmong Bible tradition equivalent) as the fixed book-title transliteration for James, and corresponding citation-format convention analogous to 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §7’s Loos pattern (e.g., a Yakaunpaus [chapter]:[verse] format).
3. Confirmation of kho kom zoo versus a qualified physical-sense variant of kev cawm dim for James 5:15 (id 55).
4. Confirmation of Yauj, Eliyas, Lahaj against the authoritative existing Hmong Bible tradition’s proper-name spellings (ids 64-66).
5. Formal adoption of the mandatory harmonizing-note requirement for every occurrence of raug suav tias ncaj ncees within James 2:14-26, cross-referencing Romans 3:28/4:5, as a structural (non-optional) rule analogous to the existing qualifier-enforcement rules in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2.2.

---

6. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

All five chapters of James have been reviewed for linguistic-gap purposes:

• Chapter 1: Contributes the trial/temptation split, wisdom-anchoring requirement, double-mindedness, law of liberty, and the “pure religion” root-avoidance case — five distinct new fencing/gap items. Reviewed in full.
• Chapter 2: Contains the single highest-risk ambiguity in the letter (justification tension) plus the anthropological-spirit disambiguation at 2:26 and the favoritism/royal-law kevcai cluster. Reviewed in full, with the core passage (2:14-26) treated as the theological anchor.
• Chapter 3: Contributes the wisdom-from-above vs. demonic-wisdom collision and the tongue/blessing-cursing ritual-speech collision. Reviewed in full.
• Chapter 4: Contributes the disputed 4:5 referent (highest-priority open flag), the kosmos dual-sense crowding, and the devil/dab field crowding. Reviewed in full.
• Chapter 5: Contributes the highest concentration of ritual-collision risk in the letter (prayer, anointing, physical healing, oath-swearing, confession) plus the endurance/patience idiom-family overload. Reviewed in full.

No chapter is silently omitted; each chapter’s gap contribution is logged above even where a chapter’s dominant material simply reuses already-fenced Romans-baseline terms without introducing new gaps.