Lamentations — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose and Governing Constraints

This document executes PRD Phase 1, Step 8. It builds directly on analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json (already produced for this curriculum) and on the Romans-baseline assets/translation_memory.json, which remains the language authority and may never be contradicted. Every term cited below carries forward its glossary/registry ID (#n) for traceability. Nothing in this document authorizes a new permanent rendering; it identifies gaps, crowding, and risk so that Step 9 (doctrine risk registry) and Phase 2 generation rules can be built correctly. Risk tiers use the identical four-level definitions inherited from the Romans baseline (Critical / High / Medium / Low).

Lamentations poses a linguistic-gap profile different in kind from Romans: Romans’ risks cluster around doctrinal vocabulary (justification, election, grace) colliding with fatalism and shamanic power; Lamentations’ risks cluster additionally around genre — sustained, unresolved grief-speech addressed to God — for which formal Hmong Christian register has comparatively little precedent, plus a dense cluster of near-synonymous Hebrew sin/judgment/comfort vocabulary that Hmong’s available lexical stock does not naturally keep separate.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 Honest Grief and Lament before God

Available Hmong terms	Source ID	Weakness	Recommended strategy
nco ntsoov / nco txog (remember)	#3	None significant; low risk	Reuse identically at both structural occurrences (3:19-20; 5:1) to preserve the book’s deliberate echo.
kev txom nyem thiab kev raug tsim txom (affliction)	#4	Risk of softening to mere sadness	Always retain the “oppressed by an external power” component; never substitute a single word for “sad.”
kev poob tebchaws, kev ya tsov ya tsuag (wandering/homelessness)	#5	Strong empathetic pull toward Hmong refugee history risks eclipsing covenant-judgment meaning	Mandatory pastoral-sensitivity note: affirm the emotional bridge, but explicitly re-anchor to covenant discipline (Doctrine 3), not ethnic-history parallel alone.
ntsuj plig (soul)	#7	Critical, escalated. Genre-level intensification of the hu plig (soul-calling) ritual collision because grief/shock is precisely the ritual trigger-context	No re-gloss permitted (fixed TM string). Mandatory disambiguating teaching note at first occurrence per lesson module; never pair with a verb evoking ritual soul-summoning.
poj ntsuam (widow); tus nplig siab (comforter, absent); tus yeeb ncuab (enemy)	#32, #33, #34	Low; stable	Reuse as-is; #33 should be explicitly linked forward to 3:21 as a structural setup.
ua li cas koj tso peb tseg mus ib txhis? (protest-question, 5:20)	#47	Pastoral, not lexical: risk of curriculum writers “resolving” the question inside the text	Must be preserved as legitimate address to God; resolution, if any, belongs only in a separate teaching note.
tsuas yog koj tau tso peb pov tseg tas mus li lawm xwb los? (unresolved close, 5:22)	#48	High. Same over-resolution risk, at maximum structural importance (final verse of the book)	No appended resolving clause inside the verse under any circumstance; see §4 Rank 11.

Cross-cutting gap: Hmong Christian liturgical tradition (hymnody, public prayer) is comparatively rich in praise, confession, and petition vocabulary but comparatively thin in modeled unresolved protest-prayer register. This is a genre-level gap, not a lexical one — no single term is missing, but the curriculum must actively teach that ending in unresolved lament is itself faithful, since the destination culture’s devotional instinct (reinforced by both Hmong Christian practice and the traditional-religion instinct to resolve ritual disturbance quickly) will otherwise pull toward premature comfort.

1.2 God’s Faithfulness amid Judgment (“Great Is Your Faithfulness”)

Available Hmong terms	Source ID	Weakness	Recommended strategy
Vajtswv txoj kev ruaj khov (faithfulness/emunah)	#12	High. Shares the root ruaj khov with the chesed compound below, risking collapse of two distinct-but-related attributes into one; also risks bleeding into the Romans TM’s Critical Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees (righteousness) moralism-collision, and into kev ntseeg (human believing) despite the shared Hebrew root	Keep as a standalone noun phrase headed by kev ruaj khov (reliability), never substitute the righteousness phrase; teach explicitly that direction of trust here runs God→us, reversing the Romans faith_believe entry’s human→God direction.
txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (raws li lus cog tseg) (chesed)	#10	High. The bracketed covenant-qualifier is structurally load-bearing; if dropped, collapses into generic strong affection	Never drop the qualifier clause; never substitute koob hmoov (forbidden, same logic as Romans grace entry).
txoj kev khuv leej (mercy/rachamim)	#11	Medium; reused TM, must stay lexically distinct from both grace and chesed	Maintain three-way fence: txiaj ntsim (grace) / txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (chesed) / txoj kev khuv leej (mercy) — never used interchangeably.
Vajtswv zoo (God is good)	#14	Low	Stable.
tshiab txhua tagkis / ua kom peb cov hnub tshiab dua (renewal inclusio)	#46	Low-Medium; comprehension only	Teach 3:23 and 5:21 together as a deliberate structural inclusio; do not translate independently without cross-reference.

Crowded neighborhood flag: §1.2 is the single densest cluster of near-synonymous “God is reliable/loving/good” vocabulary in the book (ruaj khov, hlub, khuv leej, zoo, lus cog tseg), all converging on 3:22-25. See §2.2 below for the fencing strategy.

1.3 The Justice of God’s Discipline

Available Hmong terms	Source ID	Weakness	Recommended strategy
kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath)	#19	High (reused). Here paired repeatedly with destroyed-sanctuary imagery (2:6-7, #38), sharpening the “offended spirit destroyed its own shrine” misreading risk beyond the Romans baseline’s level	Mandatory qualifier ntawm Vajtswv with zero exceptions; explicit judicial/covenant-lawsuit framing required whenever paired with sanctuary-destruction verses.
tus ncaj ncees (God is righteous, 1:18)	#18	Critical (reused). Applied to judicial rightness-in-judgment, not forensic imputation	Teaching must clarify the distinct application from the Romans justification entry to prevent “earned/provoked” misreadings of God’s own righteousness.
pas nrig ntawm nws txoj kev npau taws (rod)	#24	Medium; positive disciplinary-rod bridge	Always teach alongside #25/#26 so correction ≠ cruelty.
Vajtswv txoj kev qhuab ntuas thiab kev txiav txim ncaj ncees (composite discipline)	#25	High. Ad hoc composite phrase, not a single fixed lexeme; risk of collapsing into either bare wrath or the Romans NT katakrima entry	Keep explicitly historical/temporal/covenant-corrective; never equate with eschatological condemnation language.
tsis yog nws lub siab xav ua li ntawd (reluctant discipline, 3:33)	#26	Medium-High; must be held in tension, not resolution	Always co-teach with #19/#24/#25 in the same unit — never presented alone (risks softening judgment) or omitted (risks caricaturing God as gleeful).
zoo li tus yeeb ncuab (LORD like an enemy, 2:5)	#35	High. Simile-marker zoo li is structurally mandatory	See §4 Rank 4.
koj tej txim raug them txaus lawm (punishment accomplished, 4:22)	#41	High. Risk of conflation with Romans’ Critical propitiation entry	Explicit teaching distinction: historical sentence completed vs. once-for-all atoning satisfaction in Christ.
lub tuam tsev dawb huv / lub thaj fij (sanctuary/altar)	#38	Medium; comprehension gap, dawb huv deliberately retained here	Mark destruction explicitly as divine judgment, not mere enemy desecration.
tus vajntxwv uas raug pleev roj tsam los ntawm tus Tswv (LORD’s anointed, 4:20)	#40	Medium; must not be conflated with Christ-titles	See §3 transliteration decision below.

Cross-cutting gap: the judgment-vocabulary cluster (wrath / rod / composite-discipline / enemy-simile / punishment-accomplished) is five distinct Hebrew nuances mapped onto a comparatively small set of Hmong disciplinary/anger idioms. See §2.3.

1.4 Hope Anchored in God’s Steadfast Love

Available Hmong terms	Source ID	Weakness	Recommended strategy
lub siab (call to mind, 3:21)	#8	Low-Medium	Parallels Romans TM’s will_of_god use of siab; stable.
kev cia siab (hope/wait)	#9	Low (reused). Must retain causal “therefore” link and explicit anchor to tus Tswv	No deviation from Romans forbidden-substitution note (hope ≠ wishing).
feem (my portion, 3:24)	#13	Low-Medium; comprehension only	Clarify: the “portion” is God Himself, not restored property.
nrhiav Vajtswv (seek)	#15	Low	Pairs with passive waiting; stable.
nyob twjywm (quietly/stillness, 3:26)	#16	High. Collides with ritual-avoidance silence before a dab or during txiv neeb procedure, where silence functions to avoid provoking further spirit-anger	See §4 Rank 3.
kev cawm dim / cawm (salvation)	#17	High (reused, context-adapted). Inherits shamanic soul-rescue collision; anchor shifts from Yexus Khetos to tus Tswv (pre-incarnation)	Anchor within the verse’s own clause to tus Tswv; NT-fulfillment note kept strictly separate, never merged into the verse.
kev txhiv (redemption, 3:58)	#27	Medium (reused)	Stable; economic-legal bridge already established.

Crowded neighborhood flag: kev cia siab (wait), nrhiav Vajtswv (seek), and nyob twjywm (be still) form three grammatically similar postures that risk being taught as synonyms rather than three distinguishable, sequential stances (passive confident waiting → active pursuit → trusting silence). See §2.4.

1.5 Corporate Confession of Sin

Available Hmong terms	Source ID	Weakness	Recommended strategy
txhaum / kev txhaum (sin, general)	#20	High (reused). Default Hmong frame: reparable social/ritual fault	Retain Romans-established disambiguation; see cluster fence in §2.5.
kev fav xeeb thiab ntxeev siab rau Vajtswv (rebellion)	#21	High. Strong existing terms for willful social/political betrayal risk localizing the confession away from God	Object rau Vajtswv structurally mandatory; see §4 Rank 5.
tig rov los cuag tus Tswv (corporate repentance, 3:40)	#22	High. Risk of moralistic self-improvement reading if the divine anchor is dropped	Never omit cuag tus Tswv/cuag Vajtswv.
lees txim (confess)	#23	Medium; standard existing usage	Low novelty risk; stable.
kev qias tsis huv (uncleanness, 1:8-9)	#37	High. Risk of drifting toward the dawb huv ritual-contamination remedy frame	Never combine with dawb huv; teach as moral/covenantal defilement (idolatry), not literal spirit-contamination.
cov cev lus Vajtswv cuav (false prophets)	#39	Medium	cuav (false) qualifier mandatory whenever referencing these prophets, to avoid casting doubt on genuine prophetic office elsewhere in canon.
peb cov niam thiab txiv txhaum, tab sis peb yog cov raug them tej nqi ntawd (corporate/generational guilt, 5:7)	#43	High. Risk of collapsing into ancestor-debt-appeasement framing rather than covenantal corporate guilt	See §4 Rank 6.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing vocabulary (true lexical gaps)

Gap	Description	Disposition
Formal genre-term for “lament”	No settled Hmong Christian term distinguishes formal, Scripture-modeled lament-prayer from ordinary kev quaj ntsuag (mourning/wailing) at a genre level	Use descriptive phrasing in teaching apparatus only (e.g., “zaj lus thov uas muaj kev quaj ntsuag thiab kev cia siab ua ke”); do not force a single-word coinage into the verse text. [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: genre-label terminology for curriculum front-matter].
Botanical referent for wormwood	No local plant analog exists for la’anah	Paraphrase strategy already adopted (#6); no coinage needed.
”Covenant lawsuit” (rîb) legal-theological frame	No existing fixed Hmong theological idiom names the prophetic covenant-lawsuit genre underlying chs. 1-2’s judgment language	Construct descriptive phrase for teaching notes only (e.g., “Vajtswv coj Yudas mus rau hauv kev txiav txim raws li lub Ntawv Cog Lus”); log as NEW, pending TM-revision, not inserted into verse text.
”Kinsman-redeemer” institutional nuance	Hmong’s debt-redemption custom (already bridged via kev txhiv, #27) has no formal near-kinsman legal-office parallel	Comprehension-gap only; teaching note must supply the missing institutional background rather than expect the word itself to carry it.
Distinct term for “temporal/historical divine discipline” vs. “eschatological condemnation”	No single fixed Hmong phrase existed before this curriculum; #25 is an ad hoc composite	Retain composite phrase as a working, non-permanent rendering; flag explicitly for TM-revision review before reuse in any future OT curriculum.

2.2 Crowded neighborhood: “reliability / love / goodness” cluster (Doctrine: God’s Faithfulness amid Judgment)

Vajtswv txoj kev ruaj khov (faithfulness), txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (chesed), txoj kev khuv leej (mercy), Vajtswv zoo (good), lus cog tseg (promise) all converge on 3:22-25, a four-verse span carrying the curriculum’s title doctrine. Hmong lacks four cleanly distinct single-word equivalents; the current strategy uses one shared adjective (ruaj khov) inside two different noun phrases (faithfulness and chesed).

Fencing rule: ruaj khov functions as a shared modifier, never as an interchangeable head-term. Faithfulness = Vajtswv txoj kev ruaj khov (God’s own reliability as a general attribute). Steadfast love = txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (raws li lus cog tseg) (covenant-loyalty love, qualifier mandatory). Mercy = txoj kev khuv leej (compassion toward the miserable, no ruaj khov component at all). These three must always be taught as a triad in 3:22-23, not flattened into “God’s love.”

2.3 Crowded neighborhood: judgment/anger/discipline cluster (Doctrine: The Justice of God’s Discipline)

Wrath (kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv), rod (pas nrig...), composite discipline (Vajtswv txoj kev qhuab ntuas...), enemy-simile (zoo li tus yeeb ncuab), and punishment-accomplished (koj tej txim raug them txaus lawm) together render at least five distinguishable Hebrew nuances (aph/charon, shevet, a composite theological category, hayah ke-oyev, tam avon). Hmong’s disciplinary/anger idiom stock is smaller than this, and several of these phrases were newly constructed (not inherited TM strings) specifically to avoid collapse.

Fencing rule: wrath-vocabulary is reserved for the judicial-anger sense (never standing for the composite discipline concept); the enemy-simile is reserved exclusively for 2:5’s shocking identification and must never generalize to describe God’s disposition elsewhere in the book; punishment-accomplished (4:22) is reserved exclusively for the completed historical sentence and must never be used as a synonym for the Romans-inherited propitiation entry.

2.4 Crowded neighborhood: waiting/seeking/stillness cluster (Doctrine: Hope Anchored in God’s Steadfast Love)

kev cia siab (wait/hope), nrhiav Vajtswv (seek), nyob twjywm (be still) are near-synonymous postures in ordinary Hmong usage (all describable loosely as “not acting rashly”), but Lamentations 3:24-26 presents them as three theologically distinguishable stances: confident settled hope, active pursuit, and trusting silence.

Fencing rule: teach the three sequentially and by name every time they co-occur (3:24-26); never substitute one for another as a stylistic variant, since doing so erases Paul-parallel-structure-style Hebrew parallelism the passage depends on for its rhetorical force.

2.5 Crowded neighborhood: sin/fault/defilement cluster (Doctrine: Corporate Confession of Sin)

This is the single largest cross-cutting gap in the book. Hebrew deploys at least four semi-distinct terms across the book — general sin (chet/chatta’ah), willful rebellion (pesha/marah), ritual/moral defilement (tum’ah), and completed guilt-debt (avon, via tam avon, 4:22) — plus the generational-guilt statement of 5:7. Hmong’s available vocabulary (txhaum, fav xeeb/ntxeev siab, qias tsis huv, them nqi) maps roughly one-to-one, but every one of these Hmong words carries a default cultural frame of reparable, ritual, or clan-social fault, systematically lighter than the Hebrew covenant-lawsuit frame.

Fencing rule: every sin-cluster term in this book must carry its explicit divine object (rau Vajtswv / cuag Vajtswv / cuag tus Tswv) at first occurrence in any teaching unit; none of the four Hmong terms may be used interchangeably as stylistic variation; the generational-guilt statement (5:7) must never be taught using ancestor-debt-appeasement logic (i.e., “we must repay our ancestors’ spiritual debt through ritual”), but as shared covenantal consequence within a God-ward, not ancestor-ward, relationship.

2.6 Crowded neighborhood: dawb huv (holy/pure) across three referents

dawb huv is used (a) genuinely and correctly for the OT sanctuary/altar (#38), (b) as the Romans-inherited fixed sanctification vocabulary, and (c) was deliberately avoided for the virgin-purity personification (#31) specifically to prevent bleed into (a)/(b). This is a successful existing fence, but it must be actively maintained: any future lesson describing Zion’s former dignity/purity must not reach for dawb huv as a “more elegant” synonym for tus ntxhais tsis tau muaj txiv.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Daughter Zion / Daughter Judah personification (bat-Tsiyyon/bat-Yehudah)	Transliterate the proper noun (Xi-oo, Yudas) + paraphrase the relational title (Tus Ntxhais)	Proper names are transliterated per existing convention (cf. cov Yudas in Romans TM); the personification device itself is paraphrased since Hmong has no native “Daughter-X” idiom for corporate/civic personification. [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm "Xi-oo" against existing printed Hmong Bible Zion rendering before this becomes permanent].
Wormwood and gall (la'anah va-rosh)	Paraphrase, not transliterate	No local plant referent exists; a transliterated Hebrew botanical name would be semantically opaque, whereas the descriptive merism (tshuaj iab thiab tshuaj muaj taug) preserves the sensory-bitterness function the text requires.
The LORD’s anointed / human king (mashiach YHWH, 4:20)	Paraphrase fully; do not transliterate or reuse Khetos	Although mashiach shares its root with Christos (“Khetos”), transliterating or cross-referencing it here would wrongly suggest a Christ-title is being applied to the captured historical king (Zedekiah). The fully descriptive phrase tus vajntxwv uas raug pleev roj tsam los ntawm tus Tswv deliberately keeps this referent separated from Yexus Khetos / Leej Tub ntawm Vajtswv.
Salvation of the LORD (teshu'ah)	Reuse existing TM compound (kev cawm dim), no transliteration	Continuity with the Romans baseline; a transliterated loanword would sever this OT hope-term from the same NT fulfillment vocabulary it anticipates.
Steadfast love (chesed)	Paraphrase as a fixed compound, not a loanword or single-word gloss	No single Hmong lexeme carries covenant-loyalty-love; the compound structure lets the mandatory covenant-qualifier be built directly into the fixed phrase rather than added inconsistently as a footnote.
Edom (oppressor nation, 4:21-22)	Transliterate following the existing cov Yudas/cov Kilis pattern	Consistency with the Romans TM’s people-group transliteration convention (cov + transliterated name), here rendered cov neeg Edoo. [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm standard Hmong transliteration of "Edom" against printed Bible tradition].
”Acrostic” (structural literary device, chs. 1-4)	Neither transliterate nor paraphrase into verse text	This is a purely literary-structural fact about the Hebrew source (each stanza beginning with successive Hebrew letters), invisible and untranslatable in Hmong; it belongs exclusively in teaching-note metalanguage, never inserted into or imitated within the rendered verse text.
Aramaic-style intimacy loanwords (cf. Romans’ Abba)	Not applicable	Lamentations contains no equivalent retained-loanword address term; noted here only to confirm the retain-plus-gloss strategy from Romans has no parallel instance to apply in this book.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by (a) doctrinal load-bearing weight, (b) specificity and severity of the traditional-religion collision, and (c) likelihood of qualifier/marker being dropped in casual generation.

1. ntsuj plig (soul/inner self) — #7, Critical (escalated). Repeated grief-context occurrences (1:11,16,19; 2:12; 3:20,24,25,51,58) risk reinforcing, not merely coexisting with, the hu plig ritual soul-calling framework precisely because grief/shock is the ritual’s real-world trigger condition. Highest-priority mandatory teaching-note item in the entire book.
2. txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (raws li lus cog tseg) (steadfast love) — #10, High, Lamentations 3:22. Sits inside the curriculum’s title doctrine; qualifier-dropping collapses covenant-loyalty into generic affection; koob hmoov substitution is permanently forbidden with identical severity to the Romans grace entry.
3. nyob twjywm (quietly/stillness) — #16, High, Lamentations 3:26. Without explicit teaching, indistinguishable from ritual-avoidance silence practiced before a hostile spirit; the text’s own point (trust-based stillness grounded in known covenant character) is the opposite of fear-based appeasement-silence.
4. zoo li tus yeeb ncuab (the LORD like an enemy) — #35, High, Lamentations 2:5. If the simile-marker zoo li is ever dropped, or if the cross-reference to 3:22-33 is omitted, this verse alone reads as “the spirit turned hostile and destroyed its own shrine” — precisely the animistic pattern Lamentations’ covenant-lawsuit theology rejects.
5. kev fav xeeb thiab ntxeev siab rau Vajtswv (rebellion) — #21, High, Lamentations 1:18; 3:42. The very strength of the existing Hmong betrayal-vocabulary creates the risk: hearers may localize the confession as social/clan/political betrayal rather than covenantal rebellion against God, unless the object phrase is retained without exception.
6. peb cov niam thiab txiv txhaum, tab sis peb yog cov raug them tej nqi ntawd (generational guilt) — #43, High, Lamentations 5:7. Same collision class as the Romans Adam-Christ entry; Hmong social memory defaults to ancestor-debt-appeasement categories, which would functionally reintroduce a “we owe the ancestors” framework into a text about covenantal guilt before God.
7. koj tej txim raug them txaus lawm (punishment accomplished) — #41, High, Lamentations 4:22. Adjacent conceptually to the Romans Critical propitiation entry; conflating the two flattens redemptive history by treating a completed historical disciplinary sentence as equivalent to Christ’s once-for-all atonement.
8. Vajtswv txoj kev ruaj khov (faithfulness) — #12, High, Lamentations 3:23. Risk of bleeding into the Romans Critical righteousness/justification entry via the shared ncaj ncees-adjacent moralism collision, and of reversing trust-direction confusion with the Romans faith_believe entry.
9. kev qias tsis huv (uncleanness) — #37, High, Lamentations 1:8-9. Deliberately fenced away from dawb huv, but the fence requires active maintenance in every future lesson; a single careless pairing reopens the ritual-contamination collision the Romans sanctification/baptism entries were already built to avoid.
10. kev cawm dim / cawm anchored to tus Tswv (salvation) — #17, High, Lamentations 3:26. Inherits the Romans shamanic soul-rescue collision (dim = “escape,” paralleling ua neeb), now complicated by a pre-incarnation textual anchor (tus Tswv rather than Yexus Khetos) that requires a disciplined, separately-housed NT-fulfillment cross-reference rather than in-verse harmonization.
11. tsuas yog koj tau tso peb pov tseg tas mus li lawm xwb los? (unresolved close) — #48, High, Lamentations 5:22. Purely structural/pastoral risk: any appended resolving clause inside the verse itself misrepresents the canonical text’s deliberately open ending — the single highest risk-of-editorial-overreach item in the book.
12. kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath of God) — #19, High, Lamentations 1-3 (dense recurrence). Reused from Romans at the same nominal risk tier, but recurrence density and direct pairing with destroyed-sanctuary imagery (2:6-7) sharpen the capricious-spirit-anger misreading risk beyond the Romans baseline’s typical exposure.
13. tig rov los cuag tus Tswv (corporate repentance) — #22, High, Lamentations 3:40. If the divine anchor is dropped even once in generated content, reads as a generic moralistic “resolve to do better,” reproducing the exact collision-avoidance failure the Romans baseline already fenced for the reckoning-qualifier on justification.

---

5. Governing Note

This gap analysis is a diagnostic deliverable, not a rendering authority: it identifies where the existing glossary/registry strategies are sound, where they require reinforcement through mandatory teaching notes, and where genuine lexical gaps (§2.1) must be handled through curriculum-note paraphrase rather than forced coinage inserted into verse text. No item listed here overrides assets/translation_memory.json; any proposal to alter a fixed rendering — including the several ad hoc composite phrases flagged in §2.1 (#25 in particular) — requires the same formal TM-revision review process established in the Romans baseline before Phase 2 generation may treat it as permanent. This document should be read together with analysis/08_core_glossary.md and directly informs the doctrine risk registry to be produced in Step 9.