Doctrine Analysis
Doctrine Analysis
This Language Package’s doctrine_risk_registry.json tracks 40 doctrines across Romans 1–16, each assigned a risk tier that drives Phase 2 review routing.
Risk tier summary
| Tier | Count | Review routing | Example doctrines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 2 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ |
| High | 14 | Human theologian | Sainthood, Prayer and Intercession, Christian Fellowship, Divine Calling, Church as God’s People, Grace |
| Medium | 18 | Native speaker review | Salvation, Faith, Adoption, Sanctification, Providence |
| Low | 6 | Automated review only | Gospel, Apostleship, Humanity of Christ, Peace with God, Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification |
Why the risk profile differs from Hindi
Hindi’s Critical/High tier clusters around doctrines with a ready-made syncretistic word from an entirely different religious framework (Hinduism). Italian’s High-risk tier, the largest of any language in this batch at 14 doctrines, clusters instead around Italy’s exceptionally intense and actively practiced Catholic devotional culture: saints, intercession, fellowship, and calling all have a strong, currently-lived competing default reading (canonized-saint veneration, Marian/saint prayer, the Eucharist, priestly vocation) that a translator formed in that culture supplies automatically. This is a different and, in Italy’s case, more pervasively present mechanism than the confessional-vocabulary-overlap risk found in French, German, or Dutch, even though all four languages share the underlying Trent-vs-Reformation root for Critical terms like justification.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (16 of 40, the most of any language in this batch) require mandatory human theologian review because only a theologically informed reviewer, briefed specifically on Italian Catholic devotional practice, can judge whether a fluent Italian rendering has quietly defaulted to a saint-veneration, Marian-intercession, Eucharistic, or clergy-vocation reading instead of Paul’s own sense. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is general clarity rather than an actively practiced competing devotional default.