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 | 7 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Salvation, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 23 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 7 | Native speaker review | Apostleship, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
All seven Critical-risk doctrines share a property distinctive to Kannada: each is vulnerable not primarily to an obviously “wrong” competing word, but to a fluent, doctrinally-plausible-sounding Kannada rendering that still routes the doctrine toward the Lingayat Aikya-merger trajectory or the Haridasa avatar framework. This is a subtler failure mode than the direct lexical substitution risk more typical elsewhere in this pipeline, and it is precisely why Kannada review routing leans on human theologians who can trace where a passage’s theology is heading, not just whether its individual words are correct (see Comparative Theology).
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (30 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Kannada is fluent and individually accurate without catching that the overall trajectory of a passage still ends somewhere doctrinally different. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit and regional sensitivity rather than doctrinal contradiction.