Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude

Curriculum: Jude (single chapter, 25 verses; core passage Jude 1:3-23; full-book coverage = full-chapter coverage, vv.1-25 in their entirety) Destination language: Kashmiri (Koshur), Perso-Arabic script Baseline authority: Romans Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json, 12_ai_translation_requirements.md) Builds on: analysis/08_core_glossary.md, assets/bible_term_registry.json (Jude additions) Step: PRD Phase 1, Step 8 — Linguistic Gap Analysis

---

0. Scope and Method

Jude is a single 25-verse chapter; there is no multi-chapter scope question here as with longer books. Full-book coverage for this curriculum therefore means: every verse, v.1 through v.25, has been checked for load-bearing vocabulary. No verse of Jude is doctrinally inert — even the greeting (vv.1-2) and closing doxology (vv.24-25) carry Critical-risk terms (bondservant, called, beloved, kept, mercy, peace, love; savior, glory, majesty, dominion, authority). This analysis therefore treats the whole letter as load-bearing and organizes findings by doctrine rather than by chapter subdivision.

This document identifies, for each of the six curriculum doctrines: (1) what Kashmiri vocabulary is currently available (from the Romans baseline, from general religious Kashmiri usage, or newly proposed in the Section B glossary); (2) where that vocabulary is weak, absent, or dangerously shared with competing systems; and (3) the recommended translation strategy. It then separates two distinct classes of problem — missing vocabulary (no native term exists at all, requiring descriptive compounding) versus crowded semantic neighborhoods (a term exists but is already heavily occupied by Islamic and/or Trika theological content that must be fenced off) — because these require different Phase 2 handling. It closes with a ranked list of the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for review prioritization.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	ایمان (faith, baseline High risk); جدوجہد کرُن (to strive/struggle, general verb); حوالہ کرُن (to entrust/hand over, general verb)
Weaknesses	No existing single term for “the faith” as a closed, completed body of apostolic content — Kashmiri ایمان defaults, like Arabic/Urdu īmān, to a subjective disposition of belief/submission. No existing verb compound distinguishes doctrinal contention from physical struggle; the most available intensifier root (جہاد) is doctrinally radioactive. No existing phrase renders “once for all delivered” (ἅπαξ) with the finality Jude intends — a single-occurrence, non-repeatable transmission-event distinct from ongoing revelation.
Recommended strategy	Retain compound descriptive phrases already drafted in glossary #17-18: ایمانہ خٲطرٕ جدوجہد کرُن (contend) and اَکھ بار ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ حوالہ کرنہ گیہ ایمان (faith once delivered). Never substitute جہاد-root vocabulary at any point in this curriculum, including in paraphrase or footnote explanation, since even an explanatory aside using جہاد risks re-anchoring the whole doctrine to martial categories. Every occurrence of “the faith” in this letter (vv.3, 20) must carry a translator note reinforcing that its referent is the fixed apostolic deposit, not generic personal piety.

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	عدالت / سزا (judgment/condemnation); خُدا-ترس نہٕ (ungodly, descriptive); گناہگار (sinner, baseline); کافر (unbeliever — attested but must be excluded)
Weaknesses	عدالت/سزا genuinely overlaps with Yaum al-Din (Islamic Day-of-Judgment) vocabulary — a point of contact, not a gap, but one that risks defaulting readers to a generic deeds-weighing eschatology unless anchored explicitly to Christ as the specific executing judge (v.14-15). خُدا-ترس نہٕ is a workable descriptive compound but has no crystallized single-word equivalent; کافر is readily available and tempting as a shorter substitute but wrongly reframes Jude’s in-house warning (corruption from within the professing church) as inter-religious polemic against outsiders — a serious doctrinal distortion, not a stylistic one.
Recommended strategy	Use عدالت/سزا but require a translator note at first occurrence (v.4) and at v.14-15 anchoring judgment explicitly to the Lord’s own coming. Absolutely forbid کافر as a substitute for خُدا-ترس نہٕ anywhere in this curriculum, including summary/study-note material, not only primary text.

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	فرشتہ (angel); شیطان (devil); سدوم / عمورہ (Sodom/Gomorrah, transliterated); قابیل، بلعام، قورح (Cain, Balaam, Korah — transliterated proper names); مِیکائیل (Michael)
Weaknesses	Every one of these is a genuine point of lexical contact with Quranic material but a point of narrative divergence: mainstream Sunni theology holds angels incapable of sin (unlike Jude’s rebel-angels narrative, v.6); Qawm Lut narratives (Sodom) do not carry Jude’s specific eschatological-fire-as-type-for-false-teachers application; Habil/Qabil (Cain) emphasizes fratricide more than self-willed worship; Qarun (often identified with Korah) emphasizes wealth-arrogance more than authority-rebellion; Mika’il’s Quranic role (sustenance/rain, 2:98) differs entirely from Jude’s Moses’-body dispute tradition. There is no vocabulary gap here — the words all exist and are well attested — but there is a serious false-friend risk: shared names inviting readers to assume shared content.
Recommended strategy	Transliterate all proper names using the forms already fixed in the glossary (Section B, #25, #30, #31, #34-36, #41) and attach a mandatory translator/study note at each first occurrence stating the specific Quranic parallel by name and the specific point of divergence. Do not treat these as low-risk simply because the vocabulary is settled — the risk is conceptual transfer, not translation.

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	رحم (mercy, general Arabic-derived term shared with Islamic devotional vocabulary); شک منز (wavering/doubting); نار پؠٹھ کاڈُن (snatch from the fire)
Weaknesses	رحم has no Romans-baseline entry at all — this is a genuine new theological deployment, not a reuse — and by default reads in a Muslim-majority context as Allah’s responsive compassion weighed against a person’s deeds, exactly the pattern the baseline’s grace and salvation entries were built to resist. Jude uses رحم three times (vv.2, 21, 22) in three different grammatical roles (greeting-blessing, eschatological hope, active practice toward others), multiplying the risk that at least one occurrence will be read in the deeds-weighed sense if not anchored every time.
Recommended strategy	Require a translator note at every occurrence of رحم (not just the first), explicitly tying it to the “kept” (تھاوُن) framework of vv.1 and 24 — mercy here is extended to those God has already secured, not a still-uncertain outcome pending a final weighing. This is the single most under-scaffolded term in the whole letter relative to its doctrinal load and deserves elevation above its current “High” tier for review-routing purposes (see §4 below).

1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	تھاوُن (keep/preserve, general verb); حِفاظت کرُن (guard/protect); بے-داغ / بے-عیب حالتَس منز حٲضر کرُن (present blameless, descriptive compound)
Weaknesses	تھاوُن is a common, low-register verb (“to keep/put/hold”) with no automatic theological weight; its power in Jude comes entirely from its structural repetition (vv.1, 6 x2, 13, 21) contrasting God’s/believers’ keeping against the fallen angels’ failure to keep their own position. If translators vary the verb for stylistic reasons (a natural instinct in narrative prose), the entire wordplay — arguably the letter’s central literary-theological device — collapses invisibly. بے-داغ/بے-عیب compound has no existing crystallized form in published Kashmiri Christian material and must be treated as a first-attestation coinage.
Recommended strategy	Lock تھاوُن as invariant across all five occurrences under absolute (Critical-tier) enforcement, overriding the normal High-risk deviation-permitted rule — this is a case where the baseline’s general “High risk allows flagged deviation” rule must be tightened specifically for this book, because the doctrinal payload is carried by repetition itself, not by any single occurrence. حِفاظت کرُن at v.24 should carry a mandatory cross-reference note tying it back to the تھاوُن thread rather than being treated as an unrelated synonym.

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power

Element	Detail
Available Kashmiri terms	نجات دِنٕوَل (Savior, built on baseline نجات); صرف/اَکہٕ ہی (only/exclusively); عظمت (majesty); اقتدار (dominion); اختیار (authority); ہر زمانہٕ برونہٕ…ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ (before all time…forever)
Weaknesses	This closing doxology is theologically dense (five distinct divine-attribute nouns in one verse) and is the single passage in Jude with the strongest positive point of contact with mainstream Islamic Tawhid monotheism (exclusivity, eternality, majesty, dominion — all standard Islamic divine-attribute vocabulary, e.g. al-Jalal, al-Qudra, al-Azaliyyah). The risk here is not collision but under-differentiation: a reader could affirm every clause of v.25 as straightforward Tawhid-compatible monotheism and entirely miss that it is anchored “through Jesus Christ our Lord” — the one clause that is NOT compatible with Tawhid as mainstream Islamic theology understands it.
Recommended strategy	Structure the translation and any accompanying study note so the “through Jesus Christ our Lord” clause cannot be read as a detachable liturgical flourish — grammatically bind the Savior/glory/majesty/dominion/authority ascriptions to Christ’s mediation, not to God considered in the abstract. This is the doctrinal hinge of the entire doxology and should be flagged for theologian review even though several of its individual component words (عظمت, اختیار, ہر زمانہٕ…) are only Medium risk in isolation.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

These are two distinct classes of problem requiring different Phase 2 handling instructions, and conflating them is itself a risk this analysis flags explicitly.

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no native single-term equivalent — requires descriptive compounding)

No existing Kashmiri Christian or general-usage term covers these concepts; a fixed descriptive compound must be coined and then held invariant. These are first-attestation coinages requiring theologian/native-speaker sign-off before Phase 2 deployment, since no published Kashmiri Scripture portion can be checked against them.

Concept	Gap	Proposed compound	Coinage risk
Faith once for all delivered (v.3)	No term for a closed, non-repeatable transmission-event of doctrine	اَکھ بار ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ حوالہ کرنہ گیہ ایمان	Very high — this is the letter’s thesis claim
Love feast (v.12)	No native concept of a communal fellowship meal tied to the Lord’s Supper	پیار ہٕنٛد جشن/دعوت	Medium — risk of being reheard as a Sufi sama or communal iftar gathering
Garment defiled by the flesh (v.23)	No metaphorical (non-ritual) defilement-garment image in general usage	جِسمَس نہٕ ناپاک کرنہٕ آمژ کپڑہٕ	High — collision risk with najasa ritual-purity law (see §2.2)
Present blameless before his glory (v.24)	No existing eschatological-presentation vocabulary distinct from present-tense moral perfection	بے-داغ / بے-عیب حالتَس منز حٲضر کرُن	High — must not read as self-achieved sinlessness
Shepherding themselves (v.12, ironic)	No existing ironic-inversion shepherd idiom	پننس واسطہٕ پالنہ	Medium — irony may not survive literal translation without a note
Hidden reef / blemish (v.12)	Genuine ambiguity already in the Greek itself, not resolved by any single Kashmiri term	پوشیدہٕ خطرہٕ / داغ (both recorded)	Medium — record both senses per ambiguity protocol, do not force resolution
Reserved in eternal chains under darkness (v.6)	No existing fixed eschatological-reservation phrase	ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ زَنٛجیر منز اندھیرس تَلہٕ تھاوَنہ گیہ	High — see §2.2 for the adjacent collision risk with spirit-binding folklore
Common salvation (v.3)	No existing phrase for salvation as a jointly-held, non-fragmented shared possession	حِصّہٕ دار نجات	Medium — must not suggest pooled communal merit

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (terms exist, but are already occupied — require fencing)

These terms have perfectly serviceable, well-attested Kashmiri renderings — the problem is not absence but prior occupation by Islamic theological vocabulary, Rishi Sufi devotional practice, or Kashmir Shaivite philosophy. Each requires an explicit fence (a stated boundary distinguishing Jude’s content from the neighboring system’s content), not a different word.

Term	Occupying system	Nature of the collision	Fencing strategy
رسول (apostle)	Mainstream Islam	Reserved title for Muhammad (“Rasulullah”) and a small set of major messenger-prophets	Explicit statement at first use (v.17) that “apostle” names a distinct, closed NT office, never claiming Muhammad’s title
مسیح (Christ/Messiah)	Mainstream Islam (Isa al-Masih)	Shared title, denied divinity/atonement/resurrection content	Teach the specific content Jude gives the title at every Christological occurrence (vv.1,4,17,21,25)
فرشتہ (angel)	Mainstream Sunni angelology	Angels generally held incapable of sin	Explicit note at v.6 that Jude’s fallen-angels narrative differs from mainstream Sunni angelology
شیطان (devil)	Islamic Shaitan/Iblis narrative	Different fall-narrative and theological role	Note without assuming full overlap at v.9
مِیکائیل (Michael)	Quranic Mika’il (2:98)	Different narrative role (sustenance/rain vs. Moses’-body dispute)	Note the distinct Second Temple Jewish source-tradition at v.9
قابیل / بلعام / قورح (Cain/Balaam/Korah)	Quranic Habil-Qabil, and possible Qarun identification	Different narrative emphasis in each case	Note the specific point of divergence at v.11, per doctrine 1.3 above
خنوک (Enoch)	Quranic Idris (19:56-57, 21:85)	Canon-status question: citing 1 Enoch as prophetically true without equating it to canonical Scripture	Requires sustained explicit teaching, not a single footnote — this is a live tahrif-adjacent question, not a minor aside
ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ نار (eternal fire)	Islamic jahannam imagery	Real overlap, but Jude applies it typologically to false teachers within the professing church	Anchor to Christ’s judging authority (v.14-15), not a generic outsider-directed warning
زَنٛجیر منز اندھیرس تَلہٕ تھاوَنہ گیہ (chains in darkness)	Regional folk-Islamic spirit-binding lore (bound jinn)	Risk of being reheard as folklore rather than a specific, unique judicial reservation	Explicit note distinguishing this from folk spirit-binding narratives
خواب-بین (dreamers)	Rishi Sufi visionary-authority tradition	Private dream-vision as a live, respected source of spiritual authority in Kashmiri devotional life	Must contrast Jude’s rejection of self-authenticating vision set ABOVE the apostolic deposit (v.3,17), without a blanket condemnation of all dreams
نفسانی (soulish)	Islamic/Sufi nafs-discipline anthropology	Ascetic self-effort against the nafs vs. Jude’s diagnosis of an entire natural condition remediable only by the Spirit	Sustained explicit teaching at v.19, not a passing gloss
رحم (mercy)	Islamic deeds-weighed mercy	Responsive compassion weighed against merit vs. Christ’s sovereign covenantal mercy toward those already kept	Note at every occurrence (vv.2, 21, 22) — see §1.4
عدالت / سزا (judgment)	Islamic Yaum al-Din	Generic day-of-judgment expectation vs. Christ as the specific executing judge	Anchor explicitly at v.14-15
صرف/اَکہٕ ہی…خُدا (only God)	Tawhid; also Trika monism, differently	Doxology’s monotheism affirmed by both systems, but “through Jesus Christ our Lord” is not	Grammatically bind Savior-ascription to Christ’s mediation — see §1.6
ہر زمانہٕ برونہٕ…ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ (eternality)	Tawhid’s azaliyyah/abadiyyah	Shared ground, welcome, but must retain Christ-anchoring of prior clause	Affirm shared ground explicitly while preserving anchoring
سدوم / عمورہ (Sodom/Gomorrah)	Quranic Qawm Lut	Shared narrative core, different typological application	See §1.3

Key methodological distinction for Phase 2: Missing-vocabulary items (§2.1) need translator judgment in coining the right compound and then discipline in holding it fixed. Crowded-neighborhood items (§2.2) need no new coinage at all — the existing word is correct — but require a mandatory explanatory fence (translator note or accompanying study material) at every flagged occurrence. Treating a crowded-neighborhood problem as if it were a missing-vocabulary problem (i.e., inventing an unfamiliar new word to avoid the collision) would actually increase confusion by abandoning the reader’s existing vocabulary landmarks; the correct move is contrast-teaching, not word-avoidance.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Category	Decision	Examples	Rationale
Proper names — transliterate	Use established or newly fixed transliterated forms; never translate/gloss the name itself	یِسوع، مسیح، داؤد (baseline); سدوم/عمورہ، قابیل، بلعام، قورح، خنوک، مِیکائیل	Proper names carry their theological weight through identification with (or against) a Quranic parallel; substituting a descriptive gloss would erase the very parallel that needs to be taught into
Closed theological offices — transliterate + define	Transliterate the title, then attach mandatory definitional teaching	رسول (apostle), نجات دِنٕوَل (Savior, semi-transliterated via باseline root)	Transliteration preserves continuity with existing regional Bible-translation convention; the definition does the doctrinal work the bare word cannot
Structural/repeated theological verbs — fixed single rendering, no variation	Do not paraphrase differently at different occurrences even where Kashmiri style might prefer variety	تھاوُن (kept, 5x); خُدا-ترس نہٕ (ungodly, 5x)	Repetition IS the doctrine (Jude’s keeping-wordplay; the relentless drumbeat of “ungodly” describing the false teachers) — stylistic variation would silently destroy structural meaning
Novel compound concepts with no native equivalent — paraphrase, then fix the paraphrase	Coin a descriptive compound (§2.1 list), then hold it invariant for the rest of this curriculum and record it in translation memory	اَکھ بار ہمیشہ خٲطرٕ حوالہ کرنہ گیہ ایمان; بے-داغ/بے-عیب حالتَس منز حٲضر کرُن	These concepts have no crystallized single word in any published Kashmiri Christian source available to this Language Package; a coined compound is unavoidable, but it must not be re-coined differently in a later document
Terms with a genuine two-sense ambiguity in the Greek itself — record both, do not force resolution	Paraphrase with a slash-construction preserving both senses	پوشیدہٕ خطرہٕ / داغ (hidden reef / blemish, v.12)	The ambiguity originates in the source text (σπιλάδες), not in translation difficulty; collapsing it to one sense would overclaim certainty the Greek itself does not have
Shared vocabulary with Islamic/Trika systems — retranslate as-is, fence with notes, never substitute a “safer” synonym	Use the existing, familiar Kashmiri/Islamic-shared term; do NOT invent an alternative to dodge the collision	رحم (mercy); عدالت/سزا (judgment); فرشتہ (angel); شیطان (devil)	Avoidance would strand the reader without any word at all for a concept they already have vocabulary for; the fix is a taught contrast, not a new word (see §2.2 methodological note)

---

4. Ranked List of Jude’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined weight of (a) doctrinal centrality to this curriculum’s six named doctrines, (b) severity of potential syncretism/distortion if mishandled, and (c) absence of any existing settled Kashmiri Bible-translation precedent to fall back on.

1. “Faith once for all delivered” (v.3) — CRITICAL. The letter’s thesis claim; directly contradicts both mainstream Islamic ongoing-revelation/seal-of-prophets theology and Trika’s open guru-transmission model. No existing precedent. Requires sustained, repeated teaching, not a single footnote.

2. مرحم / mercy at vv.2, 21, 22 — CRITICAL (recommend elevating from the glossary’s “High” to Critical-tier review routing). No baseline entry to anchor against; three distinct grammatical deployments multiply the risk that at least one occurrence defaults to Islamic deeds-weighed mercy if the required per-occurrence note is skipped.

3. تھاوُن (“kept”) structural repetition across vv.1, 6(x2), 13, 21 — CRITICAL for translation-memory discipline. The doctrine “Kept by God and Presented Blameless” is carried by the pattern of this single verb; any stylistic variation by a translator (even in good faith, for readability) silently destroys the letter’s central literary-theological argument.

4. نفسانی (“soulish,” v.19) — HIGH-CRITICAL. Deep collision with the Islamic/Sufi nafs-discipline anthropology that shapes both mainstream Muslim and especially Rishi Sufi devotional life; risks being read as “undisciplined against one’s lower self” (an ascetic-effort category) rather than Jude’s actual claim (an entire natural condition remedied only by the Spirit’s presence).

5. خواب-بین (“dreamers,” v.8) — HIGH-CRITICAL. Direct flashpoint with the living, respected Rishi Sufi visionary-dream tradition (Nund Rishi, Lal Ded, pir-encounters); must reject self-authenticating private-vision authority set above the apostolic deposit without implying a blanket condemnation of all dream/vision experience, a fine distinction easily lost.

6. Enoch’s prophecy (v.14-15) and its non-canonical source — HIGH. Directly engages the Islamic tahrif/canon-corruption question from an unexpected angle: Jude cites a non-canonical book as prophetically true, which if mishandled could be read either as elevating 1 Enoch to Scripture-equal status or as conceding ground to tahrif-style arguments about the instability of the biblical canon. Requires the most carefully worded teaching note in the entire curriculum.

7. رسول (“apostle,” v.17, plural) — CRITICAL per baseline, reinforced here. The plural “apostles” specifically closes the office to a founding generation, which is doctrinally useful (reinforcing “once delivered”) but only if the reader does not simultaneously default رسول to Muhammad’s singular reserved title.

8. جلال vs. جلالی ہستی (glory vs. “glorious ones,” v.8 vs. vv.24-25) — HIGH. A single Greek root splitting into two senses within the same short letter is an easy place for a translator to accidentally collapse the distinction, which would either deify the “glorious ones” of v.8 or trivialize God’s own glory in vv.24-25.

9. عدالت/سزا (“judgment”) and its Yaum al-Din resonance (vv.4, 6, 9, 15) — HIGH. Genuine positive point of contact that becomes a liability exactly where it is NOT anchored to Christ as the specific executing judge (v.14-15); risk is default generic-Islamic-eschatology reading, not outright error.

10. فرشتہ / رشتہ کا گناہ (“angels,” v.6) and مِیکائیل (Michael, v.9) — HIGH. Mainstream Sunni angelology’s sinlessness-of-angels doctrine sits in direct narrative tension with Jude’s rebel-angels premise; readers with strong regional Islamic religious education may find this passage’s basic narrative claim counterintuitive unless addressed head-on.

11. رحم-adjacent “garment defiled by the flesh” (v.23) vs. najasa ritual-purity law — MEDIUM-HIGH. Risk of readers over-literalizing a moral metaphor into ritual-purification categories (parallel to the baseline’s caution about پاک vs. صاف).

12. صرف/اَکہٕ ہی (“only wise God,” v.25) and its Tawhid/Trika double resonance — MEDIUM-HIGH. Positive point of contact on both fronts simultaneously, but exactly for that reason the single most likely verse in the letter to be affirmed by a reader from either background without registering its Christ-specific anchoring clause.

13. پوشیدہٕ خطرہٕ / داغ (“hidden reef / blemish,” v.12) — MEDIUM. Ambiguity is native to the Greek; risk is translator over-resolution rather than reader misunderstanding, but still requires explicit dual-sense handling per the ambiguity protocol.

14. قورح ہنٛز بغاوت (Korah) vs. possible Qarun identification (v.11) — MEDIUM-HIGH. Lower urgency than items 1-10 because the identification itself is contested even within Islamic exegetical tradition, but still requires an explicit note given how often Qarun appears in regional religious education as a wealth-and-arrogance cautionary figure, a different emphasis from Jude’s authority-rebellion point.

15. حِفاظت کرُن vs. تھاوُن at v.24 — MEDIUM. Lower risk than item 3 because it is a single occurrence, but flagged because an inattentive reviewer could treat it as an unrelated synonym rather than the doctrinal climax of the same keeping-motif; requires a cross-reference note, not a re-derivation of doctrine.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Load all Section B glossary terms into translation_memory.json before any Jude segment is processed; treat them with the same non-negotiable enforcement priority as the Romans baseline’s own entries.
2. Elevate رحم (mercy) to Critical-tier review routing for this curriculum specifically, given the absence of any baseline anchor and its triple occurrence across three distinct grammatical roles.
3. Tighten the general “High risk permits flagged deviation” rule specifically for تھاوُن (kept) and خُدا-ترس نہٕ (ungodly): require invariant rendering at every occurrence regardless of stylistic pressure toward variation, since in both cases the doctrine is carried by the repetition pattern itself.
4. For every item in the §2.2 crowded-neighborhoods table, require a mandatory translator/study note at first occurrence (minimum) and, for the five items marked HIGH-CRITICAL or CRITICAL in §4, at every occurrence.
5. Treat all §2.1 missing-vocabulary coinages as provisional pending confirmation by a native Kashmiri-speaking theologian, per the same caveat the baseline attaches to imputed_righteousness and sadanuk — these are first-attestation compounds with no published Kashmiri Scripture precedent to check against.

---

This analysis extends, and must not contradict, the Romans Language Package. See analysis/08_core_glossary.md for full term-by-term detail and assets/bible_term_registry.json for the enforcement-ready registry entries referenced throughout.