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
Most of the seven Critical-risk doctrines share the familiar property found across this pipeline’s Hindu-influenced languages: a ready-made, fluent-sounding Konkani word drawn from Hindu theology that directly contradicts the doctrine (see Comparative Theology). Deity of Christ is the one Critical doctrine with an added, distinctively Konkani complication: the very word this Language Package must use for “God” (देव) is structurally shared with Goan Hindu practice’s individual temple deities, so getting Deity of Christ right depends not only on avoiding a wrong word but on consistently marking a genuinely necessary word as exclusive in context.
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 Konkani is fluent without catching that it imports a contradictory theological framework, or that a load-bearing use of देव lacks its required exclusivity marker. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural and historical sensitivity (e.g. Goa’s Inquisition-era conversion history shaping evangelism tone) rather than doctrinal contradiction.