Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 John (Korean)

0. Method and Scope

2 John’s entire text (13 verses, one chapter) is in scope. Because the letter is short and doctrinally dense — a personal, polemical letter built almost entirely around four intertwined doctrines (Walking in Truth and Love; Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation; Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment; Perseverance in the Teaching of Christ) — nearly every clause carries load-bearing vocabulary. This document extends the Romans baseline (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json) rather than replacing it, and inherits all baseline forbidden-substitution rules.

Whole-book verse coverage log:

Verse(s)	New load-bearing vocabulary?	Status
1:1	Yes — 장로, 택하심을 받은 부녀, 진리, 알다	Analyzed below
1:2	Yes — 거하다, 영원히	Analyzed below
1:3	Yes — 은혜/긍휼/평강 triad, 아버지의 아들	Analyzed below
1:4	Yes (core passage begins) — 행하다, 계명	Analyzed below
1:5	Yes (core passage) — 사랑, 계명 (recurrence)	Analyzed below
1:6	Yes (core passage) — 사랑 defined, 행하다 (recurrence)	Analyzed below
1:7	Yes (core passage) — 육체로 오심, 미혹하는 자, 적그리스도, 세상, 부인하다	Analyzed below
1:8	Yes (core passage) — 상	Analyzed below
1:9	Yes (core passage) — 지나쳐, 거하다 (recurrence), 교훈, 아들/아버지 (θεὸν ἔχει construction)	Analyzed below
1:10	Yes (core passage) — 집에 영접하다, 인사 (withheld)	Analyzed below
1:11	Yes (core passage) — 참여하다 (negative κοινωνέω)	Analyzed below
1:12	Yes — 얼굴을 마주 대하여 (idiom)	Analyzed below
1:13	Yes — 택하심을 받은 자매, 자녀 (personification question recurs)	Analyzed below

No verse in this book is doctrinally inert; every verse is logged with explicit findings rather than omitted.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the four curriculum doctrines: available Korean vocabulary, weaknesses of that vocabulary against Korean religious/cultural semantic fields, and the recommended handling strategy.

1.1 Walking in Truth and Love (1:1-6)

Element	Available Korean term(s)	Weakness in Korean context	Recommended strategy
Truth (ἀλήθεια)	진리	Reads as abstract/philosophical or scientific “truth,” one competing truth-claim among many (cf. Korea’s pluralistic religious marketplace and academic register of 진리 in non-religious contexts); does not by itself signal “the specific apostolic gospel reality about Christ”	Retain 진리; require explicit doctrinal anchoring note in every teaching unit tying 진리 to the Christ-confession of 1:7, not generic fact-claims
Love (ἀγάπη)	사랑	Korea’s dominant popular-culture register (K-drama, K-pop lyric vocabulary) has saturated 사랑 with romantic/sentimental-affection connotation; risk of readers importing an emotion-first reading	Retain 사랑 (no viable alternative exists — 자비 is Buddhist compassion-adjacent and worse; 애정 is narrower/romantic); MUST pair every occurrence with the 1:6 definitional gloss (“사랑은 계명을 따라 행하는 것,” love = walking according to the commandments) so the obedience-definition controls the emotion-word
Walk/conduct (περιπατέω)	행하다 (established KRV)	Minimal weakness; 행하다 is already the settled Bible-Korean idiom for “conduct of life” and does not compete with a live secular metaphor	No fencing needed; enforce identical rendering at 1:4 and both 1:6 occurrences
Commandment (ἐντολή)	계명	Some risk of flattening into a legalistic checklist reading, given Confucian ritual-propriety code (禮, ye) already flagged in baseline under 율법; less acute here since 계명 (cf. 십계명) is already well-anchored to moral-relational divine command in KRV usage	Retain 계명; brief note distinguishing apostolic love-commandment from etiquette-code compliance

Gap identified: No existing baseline term for “truth” or “love” as standalone glossary entries (Romans thematizes faith/righteousness more than these two). Both are NEW and must be added to translation memory before Phase 2 (already logged in 08_core_glossary.md).

1.2 Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation (1:7)

Element	Available Korean term(s)	Weakness in Korean context	Recommended strategy
Incarnation, verse-level (ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί)	육체로 오심	Low weakness given established doctrine label 성육신 already exists in Korean systematic-theology usage; risk is only that casual paraphrase could drift toward 화신 (Buddhist avatar concept) if translators improvise	Fix 육체로 오심 as the verse-level rendering exactly; 성육신 remains the doctrine-label cross-reference; 화신 is an absolute forbidden substitution
Deceiver (πλάνος)	미혹하는 자	Adjacent to but must be fenced off from shamanistic “spirit that leads astray” framing (귀신이 홀리다), which would recast doctrinal error as demonic affliction/possession rather than a false-teaching phenomenon	Retain 미혹하는 자; explicit fencing note (see §2 below) required wherever this term appears near Spirit/spirit-power vocabulary
Antichrist (ἀντίχριστος)	적그리스도	Korean apocalyptic film and eschatology-thriller media (paralleling global pop-culture trends) has narrowed public understanding of “Antichrist” to a single future eschatological super-villain	Retain 적그리스도 (established transliterated compound, no viable alternative); require teaching footnote clarifying 2 John applies this term to any PRESENT teacher denying the true incarnation
World (κόσμος, moral-order sense)	세상	Low weakness; Johannine “world-as-opposed-system” sense is already well-established in Korean church literature (요한복음, 요한일서 usage)	No fencing needed beyond standard Johannine teaching context
Confess/deny (ὁμολογέω, negated)	부인하다	Low-medium weakness; risk is under-connecting this to Romans 10:9’s positive confession (예수는 주님이시다) if taught in isolation	Retain 부인하다; require explicit cross-reference note linking incarnation-denial (1:7) to Lordship-confession (Romans 10:9) as two facets of one gospel confession

Gap identified: No baseline equivalent for “deceiver” or “antichrist” (Romans does not use either). Both are NEW, High risk, and constitute this letter’s most theologically load-bearing new vocabulary, since 1:7 supplies the letter’s doctrinal center.

1.3 Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment (1:10-11)

Element	Available Korean term(s)	Weakness in Korean context	Recommended strategy
Receive into house (λαμβάνω…εἰς οἰκίαν)	집에 영접하다	Highest-severity cultural collision in the entire letter. Korean social ethics places an unusually strong honor-value on hospitality toward guests and visiting religious teachers (손님 접대 tradition; historical Korean church custom of warmly housing itinerant pastors/evangelists). A command to withhold hospitality risks reading as a shocking breach of core Korean social propriety, or worse, as generalized “unwelcoming” behavior toward any visitor or minor theological dissenter	Retain 영접하다 (matching the positive John 1:12 usage, preserving the deliberate irony that the SAME verb used for receiving Christ is here withheld from those who deny him) but require a mandatory, tightly-scoped teaching note in every lesson unit: the refusal applies ONLY to itinerant teachers actively promoting denial of Christ’s incarnation (a specific doctrinal test), never to strangers generally, differing Christian traditions, or ordinary social hospitality
Greeting withheld (χαίρειν)	인사	Idiom-loss only (severs the χαίρω/χαίρειν wordplay with 1:4’s “I rejoiced greatly”); not a doctrinal collision	Accept the idiom loss (literal “rejoice” would be nonsensical as a greeting-formula in Korean); note the lost wordplay in teaching commentary only, not in the base translation
Greeting legitimate (ἀσπάζομαι)	문안하다	No weakness; already a distinct KRV term from 인사, preserving the literary contrast	No fencing needed; enforce as the deliberately different closing-greeting term
Complicity in evil (κοινωνέω, negative)	참여하다	Risk is NOT in 참여하다 itself but in translator drift toward reusing 교제하다 (the baseline’s positive Fellowship term) for stylistic smoothing, which would blur the doctrine’s sharp negative point	Absolutely fence 참여하다 apart from 교제/교제하다 (see §2.3 below); this is a same-root, opposite-valence pair requiring firm separation

Gap identified: No baseline precedent exists for a hospitality-withholding command; Romans contains no comparable “refuse to receive” instruction. This is a wholly NEW doctrinal-cultural collision requiring joint theologian + native-speaker/cultural review, the highest review burden in the letter alongside grace and the incarnation.

1.4 Perseverance in the Teaching of Christ (1:2, 1:8-10)

Element	Available Korean term(s)	Weakness in Korean context	Recommended strategy
Abide (μένω)	거하다	Low weakness as a word, but HIGH weakness if rendered inconsistently — since this is the letter’s central perseverance-verb, any variation (e.g., substituting 머물다 or 지속하다 in some occurrences) would obscure the letter’s rhetorical structure	Fix 거하다 as the single required rendering at every occurrence (1:2, 1:9 x2); flag any deviation for immediate correction
Going beyond/transgressing (προάγω)	지나쳐ordinaryly-adjacent phrase 지나쳐 (established KRV)	Requires cultural inversion. Korean religious and self-improvement discourse (Buddhist/folk 수행, Confucian self-cultivation, and the baseline’s own flagged 도 닦기 pattern under Sanctification) valorizes narratives of spiritual “advancement” or “progress.” A reader’s default cultural instinct is to hear “going beyond” as praiseworthy growth	Retain 지나쳐 but mandate an explicit inversion-teaching note: in 1:9, “going ahead of” Christ’s teaching is a NEGATIVE, doctrinally catastrophic abandonment — the opposite of prized spiritual-progress narratives
Teaching of Christ (διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ)	교훈	Risk of conflation with the Confucian classical-teaching/scholarly-transmission model (already flagged under baseline’s inspiration_of_scripture doctrine) — i.e., treating “the teaching of Christ” as one evolving scholarly tradition among several classical canons	Retain 교훈 (not 교리); require note that this is a fixed apostolic deposit received once, not an ongoing scholarly lineage subject to revision or synthesis
Reward (μισθός)	상	Korea’s broadly achievement/performance-oriented culture (cf. baseline’s mission-metrics caution) risks a merit-earned, competitive-exam-style reading of “full reward”	Retain 상 / 온전한 상; require pairing with 은혜 (grace) in every teaching context to prevent an implied works-righteousness reading while still preserving genuine differentiated-reward teaching
θεὸν ἔχει construction (1:9, “has God”)	하나님을 모시다 (honorific verb, per registry)	Risk of a plain-verb rendering (하나님을 가지다) sounding transactional/possessive, almost like “having” an object or a fortune-charm	Use the honorific verb 모시다 rather than plain 가지다, consistent with Korean honorific grammar conventions for reverent God-reference, and to avoid a possession/acquisition framing adjacent to 기복신앙 patterns

Gap identified: 거하다, 지나쳐, and 교훈 are all NEW relative to the Romans baseline, which never needed this vocabulary cluster (Romans expresses perseverance through calling/election/ providence language rather than the Johannine “abide” idiom).

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (Fencing Requirements)

2.1 Missing vocabulary (no baseline precedent — must be newly coined/adopted)

The following concepts have no existing entry in the Romans-derived translation_memory.json and must be added as new terms before Phase 2 processing (all already drafted in 08_core_glossary.md / the 2 John registry extension):

• 진리 (truth) — new standalone term
• 사랑 (love) — new standalone term
• 거하다 (abide) — new standalone term
• 미혹하는 자 (deceiver) — new standalone term
• 적그리스도 (antichrist) — new standalone term
• 지나쳐 (going beyond) — new standalone term
• 교훈 (teaching of Christ, distinct from 교리) — new standalone term
• 상 (reward) — new standalone term
• 집에 영접하다 (receive into house) — new standalone term
• 인사 / 문안하다 (greeting withheld / greeting legitimate pair) — new standalone terms
• 참여하다 (negative κοινωνέω) — new standalone term, fenced against 교제하다
• 긍휼 (mercy) — new standalone term
• 평강 (epistolary-greeting peace) — new standalone term, fenced against 화평 and 평안
• 장로 (elder, author’s title) — new standalone term, fenced against modern-office 장로
• 택하심을 받은 부녀 / 택하심을 받은 자매 (elect lady / elect sister) — new standalone terms

This is an unusually large proportion of wholly new vocabulary for a 13-verse book — a direct consequence of 2 John’s distinctively Johannine idiom set (abide, walk, truth, world, antichrist), which barely overlaps the Pauline vocabulary the baseline was built to serve.

2.2 Crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring fencing

Several Korean terms selected above sit inside semantic fields already crowded with competing non-Christian or folk-religious associations. Each requires an explicit “fence” — a firm boundary statement preventing bleed-through from the neighboring concept.

Fence 1 — 사랑 (love) vs. romantic/sentimental 사랑: Korean popular media has made 사랑 near-synonymous with romantic feeling. Fence: every occurrence in 2 John teaching material must carry the 1:6 definitional anchor (love = walking according to the commandments), explicitly stating this is not primarily an emotion.

Fence 2 — 미혹하는 자 (deceiver) vs. 귀신이 홀리다 (shamanistic spirit-affliction): Korean folk religion frames “being led astray” as spirit-possession or affliction by a malevolent spirit requiring a mudang’s gut ritual to resolve. Fence: 미혹하는 자 in 2 John names a false teacher propagating doctrinal error through instruction, not a victim of spirit affliction. The NT’s own occasional linkage of false teaching to deceiving spirits (1 Tim 4:1, 1 John 4:1-3) must be taught as a separate, carefully scoped point, not allowed to default into a shamanistic exorcism-frame reading.

Fence 3 — 참여하다 (negative κοινωνέω) vs. 교제/교제하다 (positive baseline Fellowship term): Both derive from the same Greek root and both denote “shared participation,” but the baseline reserves 교제 exclusively for positive shared life in Christ (Low risk). Fence: 1:11 must use 참여하다, never 교제하다, to prevent readers from hearing “greeting a deceiver” as merely a lesser form of the same warm fellowship-concept rather than a warning against moral complicity.

Fence 4 — 장로 (elder, author’s title) vs. modern Korean Presbyterian office of 장로: Contemporary Korean Protestantism (especially its large Presbyterian tradition) uses 장로 as a specific, high-status ordained lay office with defined institutional authority and social prestige. Fence: every occurrence of 장로 in 2 John lesson material requires a footnote clarifying that the author’s self-designation denotes apostolic-era seniority/authority (possibly the apostle John), not the modern ordained committee-office role, to prevent readers projecting present-day church-politics assumptions onto the text.

Fence 5 — 평강 (epistolary peace) vs. 화평 (justification peace) vs. 평안 (general well-wishing): Korean already possesses three candidate words in this neighborhood. Fence: 화평 is reserved for the baseline’s Romans 5:1 forensic-justification sense; 평안 is reserved for generic secular well-being greetings; 평강 is the dedicated third term for the epistolary grace-mercy-peace greeting-blessing formula (2 John 1:3; cf. Romans 1:7; 1–2 Timothy). These three must never be interchanged across this curriculum.

Fence 6 — 상 (reward) vs. Korean achievement/merit culture (성과급-style earned reward): Korea’s exam-and-hiring competitive culture, plus the baseline’s own flagged missions-metrics caution, primes readers to hear “reward” as performance-based compensation. Fence: 상 must always be taught paired with 은혜 (grace) so that perseverance-produced reward is understood as itself a gracious outcome of Spirit-enabled faithfulness, not an independently earned wage negotiated with God.

Fence 7 — 집에 영접하다 (receive into house) vs. Korean hospitality-honor duty (손님 접대): The single highest-severity fence in this book. Korean social ethics treats hospitality toward guests and visiting religious teachers as a strong honor-bound duty. Fence: teaching material must repeatedly and explicitly narrow the refusal-of-hospitality command to the single specific case of itinerant teachers actively denying Christ’s incarnation — never generalized to strangers, differing minor theological views, or ordinary social guests. This fence requires joint theologian and native-speaker/cultural review before any lesson using this term is finalized.

Fence 8 — 택하심을 받은 부녀 (elect lady) vs. κύριος/주님 phonetic-conceptual proximity: κυρία shares a root with κύριος (Lord). Fence: absolutely no 주-root Korean word (e.g., avoid any coinage using 주 as in 주부인 or similar) may be used for κυρία, to prevent visual/phonetic confusion with the Critical baseline term 주님. 부녀/여인 must be used instead, with a footnote on the individual-woman-vs-personified-church interpretive question.

2.3 Neighborhoods checked and found low-risk (no fencing required)

• 세상 (world, Johannine moral-order sense) — already well-established in Korean church usage from John/1 John; no live competing folk concept threatens this rendering.
• 문안하다 (legitimate closing greeting) — a settled, unambiguous KRV epistolary term.
• 얼굴을 마주 대하여 (face-to-face idiom) — idiom-loss only if translated literally, but the natural equivalent carries no doctrinal collision risk once selected correctly.
• 영원히 (forever/age) — simple durational adverb; the baseline’s reincarnation-adjacent caution (flagged under Resurrection) applies with much lower force here since no afterlife-cycle doctrine is directly at stake in 1:2’s usage.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Antichrist (ἀντίχριστος)	Transliterate/compound: 적그리스도	Already an established Korean theological compound (적 “against” + 그리스도 “Christ”); no paraphrase improves on it, and coining an alternative would break consistency with existing Korean church literature and other NT books in this pipeline (1 John, Revelation)
Abba-style intimacy terms	N/A in 2 John (no Abba occurrence in this letter)	Not applicable; noted for completeness against the baseline’s Romans 8:15 precedent
χαίρειν (withheld greeting)	Paraphrase, not literal transliteration/translation: 인사, not a literal “rejoice”-based rendering	A literal rendering of the Hellenistic greeting-infinitive (“to rejoice”) would be opaque as a greeting-formula in modern Korean; the pipeline’s general idiom-handling principle (natural equivalent over literal transfer) governs here, matching established KRV practice
στόμα πρὸς στόμα (mouth to mouth)	Paraphrase via established Korean idiom: 얼굴을 마주 대하여 (“face to face”)	A literal “입과 입을 마주하여” risks sounding like a kiss or a resuscitation technique in modern Korean; KRV’s own established idiom-equivalent must be used
πρεσβύτερος (elder)	Translate using existing KRV term, not a new coinage or transliteration: 장로	장로 already exists as the settled KRV rendering across the whole Bible; inventing an alternative (e.g., a transliterated “프레스뷔테로스”) would break consistency and offer no clarity benefit — but the term requires a scoping footnote (see Fence 4), not a different word choice
ἐκλεκτή (elect, adjectival)	Translate, cross-referencing baseline: 택하심을 받은	Consistent with baseline’s 선택/election family; no transliteration warranted, this is a core theological concept requiring full semantic transfer, not a proper-noun-style transliteration
Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός and all other proper names	Transliterate per existing KRV forms: 예수, 그리스도 (and 요한 if the author is named in teaching commentary)	Per baseline transliteration standards; no deviation
θεός, πατήρ	Translate using fixed baseline terms: 하나님, 아버지	Not transliteration candidates; these are the pipeline’s most Critical fixed terms and must never be transliterated as loanwords
ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί (incarnation, verse-level)	Paraphrase using an established compound rendering: 육체로 오심 (“having come in the flesh”), with 성육신 retained as the separate doctrine-label	Direct morpheme-for-morpheme transliteration is not applicable to a Greek participial phrase; the existing KRV verse-level paraphrase is doctrinally precise and must be retained exactly

General principle applied throughout: transliteration is reserved for proper names and a small set of already-settled theological compounds (적그리스도, 성육신, 그리스도); all other concept-vocabulary in 2 John is handled through careful, glossary-fixed paraphrase/translation, consistent with the baseline’s established idiom-handling instructions.

---

4. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality to 2 John’s core passage (1:4-11) and (b) likelihood of cultural/semantic collision in Korean. All entries below require Human Theologian review per Phase 2 routing; items 1-4 additionally require joint native-speaker/ cultural review given their cultural-collision dimension.

1. Receive into house / hospitality withholding (1:10, 집에 영접하다) — Highest overall risk in the letter. Collides directly with a deeply held, socially reinforced Korean hospitality-honor norm (손님 접대), risking either (a) readers softening the command out of social discomfort, or (b) readers over-generalizing it into blanket unwelcoming behavior toward any visitor or minor theological difference. Requires the tightest possible doctrinal scoping in every teaching unit.

2. Denying the incarnation / antichrist (1:7, 육체로 오심 / 적그리스도) — The letter’s doctrinal center. Two compounding risks: (a) 화신 (Buddhist avatar-concept) intrusion if paraphrased loosely instead of using the fixed 육체로 오심/성육신 pairing; (b) popular apocalyptic-media narrowing of “antichrist” to a single future super-villain rather than any present teacher denying true incarnation. Both risks, if realized, would blunt the letter’s entire polemical thrust.

3. Love defined as obedience, not sentiment (1:5-6, 사랑) — High risk precisely because 사랑 is a maximally familiar, “safe-feeling” word to Korean readers, which paradoxically increases risk: familiarity breeds under-scrutiny. Absent the 1:6 definitional anchor being explicitly taught every time, readers will default to K-drama-register romantic/sentimental love, missing the letter’s entire ethical argument that love just IS commandment-keeping.

4. Complicity via greeting (1:11, 참여하다 vs. 교제하다) — High risk of silent translator drift toward the more familiar, positively-connotated 교제하다 for stylistic smoothing, which would erase the passage’s sharp warning that even a minimal social gesture (a greeting) constitutes moral partnership in false teaching. This is a subtle, easily-missed substitution risk precisely because both candidate words are already well-known church vocabulary.

5. “Going beyond” as negative, not progress (1:9, 지나쳐) — High risk of a positive-valence misreading given Korea’s culturally prized spiritual-advancement/self-cultivation narratives; without explicit inversion-teaching, readers may hear “going ahead of the teaching of Christ” as an admirable deepening of faith rather than a doctrinally catastrophic departure.

6. Reward vs. earned wage (1:8, 상) — High risk of merit-based/performance-culture misreading; must be paired with grace-language in every occurrence to prevent an implied works-righteousness framework from displacing the text’s grace-perseverance logic.

7. Elder as modern church office (1:1, 장로) — Medium-high risk of anachronistic institutional projection (Korean Presbyterian office-holder status) onto the author’s apostolic self- designation; manageable with a consistent footnote but easy to omit under time pressure in Phase 2 batch processing.

8. Elect lady, individual vs. personified church, and the κυρία/κύριος proximity (1:1, 1:13, 택하심을 받은 부녀 / 자매) — Medium-high risk, primarily interpretive (individual vs. congregation) rather than doctrinal-collision, but the phonetic-root proximity to 주님 (κύριος) creates a real fencing requirement that must not be relaxed for translation fluency.

9. Epistolary peace vs. justification peace vs. general well-being (1:3, 평강 vs. 화평 vs. 평안) — Medium-high risk of cross-document inconsistency (a Phase 2 batch-processing risk rather than a single-segment risk): if a worker translating a different epistle in this same curriculum set defaults to the baseline’s 화평 out of habit, the letter’s specific grace-mercy-peace greeting formula will be flattened into the unrelated Romans 5:1 technical sense.

10. Deceiver vs. shamanistic spirit-possession framing (1:7, 미혹하는 자) — Medium risk; well-established KRV term lowers baseline ambiguity, but Korean folk-religious “led astray by a spirit” framing remains a live enough cultural undertow to warrant an explicit fencing note wherever this term co-occurs with Spirit/spiritual-power vocabulary elsewhere in the curriculum.

---

5. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2 Handoff

1. Add all fifteen new terms listed in §2.1 to translation_memory.json before any Phase 2 segment processing begins, each with the risk tier and forbidden-substitution notes already drafted in 08_core_glossary.md and the 2 John bible_term_registry.json extension.
2. Apply all eight fences in §2.2 as mandatory teaching-footnote triggers, not merely translator background knowledge — footnotes must appear in the actual curriculum lesson material, not only in internal QA notes.
3. Route items 1-4 of the ranked ambiguity list (§4) for combined theologian + native-speaker/ cultural review as a single joint pass, given that their risk is compounded (doctrinal AND cultural) rather than singular.
4. Flag Phase 2 batch-processing workers explicitly against defaulting to baseline Romans terms (화평, 교제하다) in 2 John contexts where the correct term is a new, letter-specific rendering (평강, 참여하다) sharing a root or a semantic neighborhood with the baseline term.
5. Given this short book’s unusually high risk density (per 08_core_glossary.md’s summary), allocate proportionally greater Phase 2 human-review capacity per verse than for longer, more narratively diffuse books in this curriculum set.