06 — Linguistic Gap Analysis: Jude (Korean)

0. Scope and Method

Jude is a single chapter of 25 verses, unusually dense in load-bearing theological vocabulary (see analysis/08_core_glossary.md, Part C: “no verse contributes zero new terms”). This analysis therefore organizes gap findings by doctrine (per the six curriculum doctrines) rather than by chapter, since chapter-based organization would be vacuous for a one-chapter book. Each doctrine section below is cross-referenced to its governing verses so full-book coverage is traceable verse-by-verse.

This step performs four analytical tasks the core glossary (Step 6/08) does not itself perform:

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix — for each doctrine, what Korean vocabulary is available, where it is weak, and what strategy Phase 2 translators should follow.
2. Missing vocabulary vs. crowded semantic neighborhoods — where Korean has no ready equivalent (a gap requiring coinage/compounding) versus where Korean has too many competing near-synonyms already claimed by other religious traditions (a neighborhood requiring a defensive “fence”).
3. Transliteration vs. paraphrase decisions — a explicit ledger of which Jude-specific terms should be transliterated (as with 아멘, 아빠) versus paraphrased/compounded into native Korean theological vocabulary, with reasoning.
4. Ranked highest-risk ambiguities — a prioritized list (not merely a glossary) telling Phase 2 reviewers where to spend the most scrutiny time first.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered (Jude 1:3)

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
믿음 (faith, baseline REUSE)	Established, doctrinally load-bearing across whole Romans corpus	Korean 믿음 defaults to the subjective-trust sense; Jude 1:3’s “the faith” (τὴν πίστιν) is the objective deposit of apostolic doctrine — a sense shift the single word does not signal on its own	Retain 믿음 (per glossary enforcement) but require an obligatory qualifying phrase in Phase 2 output — e.g. “성도에게 단번에 주신 믿음” (the faith once delivered to the saints) — so the definite article’s referential, content sense is carried by syntax, not lexical choice alone
힘써 싸우다 (contend earnestly, NEW)	Vivid, active verb capturing epagōnizomai’s intensified struggle	Korean readers steeped in either (a) literal martial-arts/combat drama tropes or (b) charismatic “spiritual warfare against opposing spirit-power” preaching could misread this as physical or occult contest	Explicit teaching gloss required: contending = defending sound apostolic doctrine and holy living through teaching, correction, and steadfastness — not ritual/power confrontation with hostile spirits (cf. baseline’s existing 영력/능력 caution)
단번에 (once for all, NEW) + 전해진/주신 (delivered, NEW)	Together they successfully block an “evolving revelation” misreading	Individually, 전해진 alone risks resonance with Korean religious-transmission vocabulary (see §2.2 below)	Always pair 단번에 with 전해진/주신 in the same clause; never let 전해진 stand alone as the rendering of paradidōmi in doctrinal exposition

Doctrine-level gap finding: No true vocabulary gap here — Korean has adequate lexical resources — but a crowded neighborhood around “transmission of teaching” (see §2.2).

1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers (Jude 1:4, 6–19)

This is Jude’s most vocabulary-dense doctrine, spanning roughly two-thirds of the letter’s terms.

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
경건하지 아니한 (자) (ungodly, NEW)	Compositionally transparent (경건 = godly reverence + negation)	Because 경건 itself is a fairly abstract, formal-register word, the seven-fold repetition (highest concentration in the NT) risks feeling repetitive/stilted in a natural Korean reading aloud; translators may be tempted to vary the rendering for style	MUST resist stylistic variation; doctrine_risk_registry-style flag required: render identically at all 7 occurrences (1:4, 1:15 ×4, 1:18) to preserve the rhetorical hammer-blow effect Jude intends
심판 (judgment, NEW)	Standard, well-understood Korean Christian judicial-verdict term	Risk of bleeding into 액운 (impersonal misfortune) or 업보 (karmic retribution) in the minds of readers whose folk-Buddhist assumptions run alongside their Christian profession	Always anchor 심판 to an explicit divine agent in surrounding text (“하나님의 심판,” “주님의 심판”) rather than letting it stand as an abstract, agentless outcome
미리 정해진 (marked out beforehand, NEW)	Captures prographō’s “written down in advance” sense	Sits immediately adjacent, in the same semantic field, to (a) baseline’s 선택 (election, gracious) and (b) 팔자 (birth-chart fatalism) — a double collision risk unique to this term	See ranked ambiguities §4, rank #2. Recommend a mandatory footnote at first occurrence distinguishing all three: judicial foreknowledge of culpable persons (Jude) vs. gracious salvific choice (Romans 9-11) vs. impersonal astrological fate (folk religion)
방탕 (sensuality, NEW), 정욕 (lust, NEW)	Common, well-worn Korean moral vocabulary	Some risk of Confucian-style “loss of self-discipline/propriety” reading (수신 failure) rather than specifically a perversion of grace into license	Teaching note should tie 방탕 explicitly back to 은혜 (v.4’s “turning grace into 방탕”) so it reads as a theological perversion, not a bare ethics violation
주재 (Sovereign Master, δεσπότης, NEW) paired with 주님 (κύριος, baseline)	Successfully creates the needed two-word doubling for v.4’s rhetorical double-title	주재 is a comparatively rare, formal/literary Korean word; average readers may not immediately register its weight or its distinctness from 주님	Requires an explicit translator’s note at first occurrence (v.4) unpacking the double title as an emphatic joint affirmation of Christ’s absolute ownership-authority AND relational lordship — not two synonyms accidentally repeated
주권 (κυριότης, angelic/governing authority-order, NEW) vs. 주님/주재	Lexically distinct from both Christological titles, avoiding the worst collision	Korean 주권 also carries a strong modern political-sovereignty connotation (e.g. “국가 주권,” national sovereignty) from contemporary civic usage	Flag for native-speaker review: ensure the angelic-authority-order sense is clear from context and not read as a statement about political sovereignty

Doctrine-level gap finding: No single missing-word gap; the challenge is term-density management — nine to twelve distinct high/medium-risk terms cluster within eleven verses (1:4, 1:8–19), demanding unusually disciplined consistency across all Phase 2 output for this doctrine.

1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom) (Jude 1:5–7, 11)

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
멸망시키다/멸망하다 (destroy/perish, NEW)	Consistent judgment-vocabulary field across all three OT types	Generic enough that its connection to the specific historical referent (wilderness Israel, fallen angels, Sodom) can get lost if the surrounding narrative frame is trimmed in lesson materials	Curriculum writers (not just translators) should be instructed to always retain the concrete referent noun (이스라엘 백성, 천사들, 소돔과 고모라) adjacent to 멸망 verbs, never let the verb stand alone as a floating abstraction
천사 (angels), 소돔과 고모라 (Sodom/Gomorrah), 가인/발람/고라 (Cain/Balaam/Korah)	All established, uncontroversial proper-name/common-noun terms; Korea’s high biblical literacy is a genuine asset here	Low risk overall	No special strategy required beyond standard proper-name consistency
다른 육체 (strange flesh, NEW), 음행하다 (sexual immorality, NEW)	Textually faithful to the euphemistic-but-clear Greek idiom	Korean public discourse on this topic is currently highly contested; translators may feel pressure toward euphemistic softening	Preserve the text’s own level of directness — neither more explicit nor more euphemistic than the Greek — and avoid contemporary polemical vocabulary from either side of Korea’s current social debates; this is OT-typological narrative exposition, not contemporary ethical argument
영원한 불 (eternal fire, NEW)	Clear judgment-image	Adjacent to Buddhist hell-cosmology (지옥, 저승) which in Korean folk-Buddhist imagination is often cyclical/purificatory rather than final	Explicit teaching note required distinguishing Jude’s fixed, final judgment fire from any transitional/purifying folk-Buddhist hell concept

Doctrine-level gap finding: No missing vocabulary. The risk here is entirely conceptual-framing (finality vs. cyclicality of judgment), not lexical availability.

1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering (Jude 1:2, 21–23)

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
긍휼 (mercy, NEW CRITICAL)	The single biggest positive vocabulary gap-fill of this curriculum — Korean does possess this term in general Christian usage, but it is absent from the baseline Romans translation memory entirely, despite Romans itself using ἔλεος (e.g. Romans 9:15–18, 11:30–32; Romans simply was not flagged for it in the baseline TM). This curriculum must formally induct 긍휼 into translation memory for the first time.	Immediately adjacent, in the same semantic field, to 은혜 (grace, baseline Critical) — both gloss loosely as “unmerited favor/kindness” in casual usage	See ranked ambiguities §4, rank #1. Mandatory distinguishing footnote at every Jude occurrence (1:2, 1:21, 1:22–23): 은혜 = unmerited legal/salvific favor establishing right standing; 긍휼 = compassionate covenant-love responding to a sufferer’s weakness/misery. Related, not interchangeable.
자비 (Buddhist universal compassion) — REJECTED as a rendering	N/A — correctly excluded already in prior glossary	Real risk that Phase 2 translators or downstream curriculum writers unfamiliar with this analysis might reach for 자비 as a “more natural” Korean word for compassion	Add 자비 explicitly to the FORBIDDEN list for 긍휼 in translation_memory.json (see §5 recommendation below); 자비 in Korean Buddhist usage is an impersonal principle extended without moral distinction to all sentient beings, whereas 긍휼 flows from a personal covenant God and (per 1:23) is paired with moral discernment
의심하는 자 (wavering/doubting, NEW)	Successfully distinguishes struggling believers from the settled false teachers	Korean 의심 can carry a slightly more intellectual “skeptical doubt” flavor than the relational/moral wavering (diakrinō, lit. “divided-judgment”) Jude intends	Teaching note: this is pastoral wavering under pressure from false teachers, not abstract philosophical doubt; the category is sympathetic, not censorious
건져내다 (snatch/pull out, NEW), 두려움 (fear, NEW)	Vivid rescue-imagery vocabulary, well-suited to Korean narrative register	두려움 alone risks folk-religious 액운 (misfortune-fear) resonance if unanchored	Always pair 두려움 with an explicit object (“죄를 두려워함,” fear of sin’s contaminating danger), never leave it as free-floating dread

Doctrine-level gap finding: This doctrine contains the curriculum’s single highest-priority true vocabulary gap: 긍휼 must be added to translation memory formally, with an explicit fencing note against both 은혜 and 자비.

1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless (Jude 1:1, 6, 13, 20–21, 24)

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
지키다/지키심을 받다 (τηρέω, NEW) and 지키다/보호하다 (φυλάσσω, NEW)	Deliberate shared word-family creates strong thematic unity across the whole epistle (angels who did NOT keep vs. believers who ARE kept)	Korean 지키다 is an extremely common, semantically “light” everyday verb (used for keeping promises, keeping appointments, keeping traffic rules); its theological weight must be built through context, not the word itself	This is a documented intentional exception to strict one-Greek-word-to-one-Korean-word mapping (see 08_core_glossary Part D.2); Phase 2 must NOT be flagged as an inconsistency when τηρέω and φυλάσσω both render to 지키다-family verbs — this is by design
부적 (talisman/charm) — REJECTED as a framing	N/A	Real risk: Korean folk-shamanistic protective charms use exactly this “kept/protected” semantic space in everyday speech (부적을 지니다, “carry a protective charm”)	Any illustrative or homiletical material accompanying the translation must avoid metaphors that could be heard as validating a talisman-like magical mechanism of protection; God’s keeping is personal, relational, and moral — not a charm’s automatic efficacy
흠 없이 (blameless, NEW)	Rich OT sacrificial-background resonance available to a biblically literate Korean audience	Risk of being heard as (a) present-tense ritual purity checklist, or (b) Confucian self-cultivated moral perfection (수신/수양) achieved by personal effort	Teaching note required: this is a future, God-granted state achieved through Christ’s preserving work, presented at his return — parallel to, and consistent with, the baseline’s existing 성화 (sanctification) framing that resists 수행/도 닦기 self-cultivation readings
그 영광 앞에 세우다 (present before glory, NEW)	Transparent, compositional Korean phrase	None significant	Low risk; retain as-is

Doctrine-level gap finding: No missing vocabulary; the risk is entirely in guarding against magical/talismanic and self-cultivation misreadings of otherwise perfectly adequate Korean words.

1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power (Jude 1:24–25)

Available Korean vocabulary	Strength	Weakness	Recommended strategy
구주 (Savior, NEW Critical)	Standard, well-established Korean Christian term	Korea’s religiously plural landscape (multiple new religious movements, syncretistic groups, and some folk-messianic sects) also deploy savior/messiah-type claims; 홀로/오직 (only/alone) is doing essential exclusivity work here	Never permit 홀로 하나님 (the only God) or 오직 구주 (Savior alone) to be trimmed for economy in Phase 2 output; the exclusivity qualifier is theologically load-bearing, not decorative
권능 (κράτος, NEW) / 권세 (ἐξουσία, NEW) / 능력 (δύναμις, baseline Critical)	Successfully maintains a documented three-way lexical distinction	High risk of accidental conflation by any translator not fully briefed on this three-way distinction, since all three English glosses (“power,” “might,” “dominion,” “authority”) overlap heavily in ordinary English and are near-synonyms in casual Korean too	MANDATORY pre-flight note for Phase 2: treat this as a closed, non-substitutable triple. See ranked ambiguities §4, rank #3.
위엄 (majesty), 영원 (age/eternity)	Standard doxological vocabulary	Low risk	No special strategy required

Doctrine-level gap finding: No missing vocabulary; the risk is a precision-under-synonym-pressure problem — three closely related Korean words must be kept apart under editorial and stylistic pressure to vary or simplify.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Missing Vocabulary (true gaps requiring new coinage/compounding)

Unlike some curricula in this pipeline, Jude presents very few genuine lexical gaps in Korean — Korean theological vocabulary, refined over more than a century of Bible translation, already has serviceable words for nearly every concept Jude raises. The two genuine gap-fill items are:

1. 긍휼 (mercy) formally entering translation memory. Korean has the word; the gap is structural/procedural — it was never registered in the baseline Romans TM (Romans’s ἔλεος occurrences were not flagged there), so this curriculum is the first to require its formal doctrine-risk classification, fencing notes, and Critical-tier designation. This is treated in this pipeline as equivalent to introducing a “new” term even though the Korean word itself is old and familiar.
2. δόξαι / “glorious ones” (영광의 존재들, angelic dignitaries). Korean has no single existing established Bible-translation-tradition word for this concrete-plural sense distinct from abstract 영광; the compound phrase 영광의 존재들 is a constructed solution (not itself unique to this analysis — reflecting existing KRV interpretive tradition) but should be flagged as a coined descriptive phrase rather than a lexical item with independent standing, meaning translators must not assume it will be recognized as a fixed technical term by readers on first encounter.

2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (need active fencing)

These are areas where Korean has too many candidate words, several already claimed by competing religious/cultural systems, such that the correct choice must be actively defended against natural-sounding but doctrinally corrosive alternatives.

Neighborhood	Competing occupants	Fencing required
Compassion/unmerited-favor cluster	은혜 (grace) / 긍휼 (mercy) / 자비 (Buddhist compassion) / 복 (fortune, 기복신앙)	Four-way fence: 은혜 = unearned legal favor; 긍휼 = compassionate response to misery, morally discerning (not indiscriminate); 자비 and 복 both explicitly forbidden as renderings for either term. This is Jude’s most crowded neighborhood because vv.2, 4, 21–23 place 은혜 and 긍휼 in close textual proximity, inviting collapse.
Transmission-of-teaching cluster	전해진/주신 (delivered, Jude 1:3) / 법통 전수 (Buddhist dharma-lineage transmission) / 사사 (Confucian master-disciple transmission)	Jude’s παραδίδωμι describes an open, complete, once-for-all deposit given to all the saints — the opposite structure of both competing Korean transmission concepts, which imply a progressive, often secret teaching passed to a qualified inner circle. Fence: any curriculum illustration comparing “passing down the faith” to a teacher-disciple lineage must be explicitly corrected, not left to stand uncommented.
Power/authority cluster	능력 (dynamis, baseline Critical, tied to Romans 1:16) / 권능 (kratos) / 권세 (exousia) / 영력 (shaman’s spirit-power, forbidden) / 주권 (kyriotēs, angelic authority-order; also modern political sovereignty)	Five-way fence required (see §1.6 and §1.2 above); this is the neighborhood most likely to produce silent, unflagged conflation errors in Phase 2 batch processing because all near-synonyms are independently “correct-sounding” Korean words.
Keeping/protection cluster	지키다/보호하다 (τηρέω/φυλάσσω, personal divine keeping) / 부적 (shamanistic talisman) / 액막이 (misfortune-warding folk practice)	Two-way fence: Jude’s “kept by God” is relational and moral (God preserving persons in fellowship with himself), never mechanical/magical warding-off of impersonal misfortune.
Judgment/fate cluster	심판 (krima/krisis, personal divine verdict) / 미리 정해진 (prographō, judicial foreknowledge) / 팔자 (birth-chart fatalism) / 액운 (impersonal misfortune) / 업보 (karmic retribution)	Four-way fence, the most theologically consequential in the “Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers” doctrine; see ranked ambiguities §4, rank #2.
Godly-fear cluster	두려움 (phobos, reverent moral carefulness, Jude 1:23) / 액운에 대한 두려움 (folk fear of misfortune/spirits)	Must always be anchored to an explicit object (fear of sin’s danger), never left as free-floating dread that could register as folk-superstitious anxiety.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
ἀμήν (Amen)	Transliterate: 아멘	Baseline convention; universally recognized liturgical transliteration across Korean Christian tradition.
Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος (Michael the archangel)	Transliterate + native compound: 미가엘 천사장	Proper name transliterated (미가엘); title translated/compounded (천사장, “angel-chief”) per established KRV convention rather than transliterating “archangel” itself.
Κάϊν, Βαλαάμ, Κόρε (Cain, Balaam, Korah)	Transliterate: 가인, 발람, 고라	Established proper names; Korea’s high OT/Genesis-Numbers literacy makes these names recognizable without gloss, though a brief narrative reminder of each figure’s sin is still recommended in accompanying lesson text (not the translation itself).
Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα (Sodom and Gomorrah)	Transliterate: 소돔과 고모라	Established proper names; no paraphrase needed or appropriate.
Ἑνώχ (Enoch)	Transliterate: 에녹	Established proper name; paired with a mandatory canonicity footnote (paraphrase-level explanation), not a paraphrase of the name itself — see §1 above and the dedicated canon note in 08_core_glossary.md Part D.5.
δεσπότης (despotēs, Sovereign Master)	Paraphrase/compound, not transliterate: 주재	No natural transliteration path exists for this Greek common noun (unlike proper names above); 주재 is an existing formal Korean word repurposed here, not a coinage, but functions similarly to a technical term requiring a first-occurrence gloss.
ἀγάπη/ἀγάπαι (love feast)	Paraphrase/compound: 애찬	Established KRV compound term (愛餐, “love-meal”); transliterating “agape” alone (아가페) would lose the concrete institutional referent (a shared communal meal) and risk sounding like an abstract philosophical-love loanword increasingly used in secular Korean pop-psychology contexts (아가페 vs. 에로스 popular distinctions) — paraphrase is clearly preferable here.
Ἀββά (Abba) — cross-reference to baseline, not in Jude itself but relevant methodologically	Transliterate: 아빠 (baseline precedent)	Cited here only to note the general principle the baseline establishes: transliterate when an intimacy/register match exists in Korean; Jude itself does not use this term, but the same transliteration-when-register-matches principle should govern any future Jude-adjacent epistle (2 Peter parallels) sharing vocabulary.
ψυχικός (psychikos, sensual/worldly)	Paraphrase: 육에 속한 (자)	No single Korean word captures “belonging to natural/soulish life without the Spirit”; compositional paraphrase is required and already adopted. Do not transliterate a Greek philosophical-anthropology term into a curriculum aimed at general Christian readers.
πλάνη (planē, error/deception) and ἀστέρες πλανῆται (wandering stars)	Paraphrase, shared root preserved in Korean where possible: 미혹 / 유리하는 별	Korean cannot preserve the Greek pun (planē/planētai share a root, “wandering”) through a single shared morpheme, but both renderings independently carry a “straying/wandering” sense; a translator’s note may point out the wordplay for teaching purposes even though the Korean text itself cannot reproduce it.

General principle established for this curriculum: transliterate only (a) proper names, and (b) the single liturgical exclamation 아멘, consistent with baseline practice; paraphrase/compound everything else, favoring existing Korean Protestant vocabulary over new coinages wherever an adequate compositional option exists (per the AI requirements document’s “prefer established church literature vocabulary over inventing new coinages” rule).

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities (Jude-Specific)

This ranking is for Phase 2/3 review-time prioritization — where limited theologian-review hours should be spent first.

1. 은혜 (grace) vs. 긍휼 (mercy) collapse, Jude 1:2, 1:21–23. Highest rank because: (a) both are Critical-risk, (b) both occur in the same short pericope (the closing exhortation, vv.20–23) in a way that invites a reader to treat them as synonymous intensifiers, and (c) 긍휼 is a newly formalized term for this pipeline with no prior Romans-curriculum precedent to anchor reviewer intuition. Recommendation: mandatory theologian sign-off on every occurrence of either term throughout Jude, not just spot-checking.

2. 미리 정해진 (prographō, “marked out beforehand”) vs. 선택 (election) vs. 팔자 (fate), Jude 1:4. Ranked second because a single mistranslation or an under-explained rendering here could cause a Korean reader to conclude either (a) Jude teaches double predestination to damnation in the same gracious sense as Romans 9’s election, or (b) Jude teaches astrological fatalism — both serious doctrinal errors, and both plausible misreadings absent an explicit fencing footnote. This is the single highest Critical-adjacent doctrinal risk in the letter’s opening verses.

3. 능력 / 권능 / 권세 (dynamis / kratos / exousia) three-way conflation, Jude 1:25 (in doxological proximity to the whole letter’s power/authority vocabulary in vv.4, 8, 24). Ranked third because the failure mode is invisible — all three “sound correct” independently, so an inconsistency is unlikely to trigger normal proofreading alarms; only a deliberate cross-reference check against the registered three-way distinction will catch it. Recommend an automated string-match validation step in Phase 2 tooling specifically for this triple, in addition to human review.

4. δόξαι “glorious ones” (1:8) vs. abstract δόξα “glory” (1:24-25) conflation. Ranked fourth: if a Phase 2 worker is not alerted to the distinct referent, 영광의 존재들 could easily be simplified to bare 영광 for stylistic smoothness, erasing the concrete angelic-being referent and creating a confusing doubled abstract-glory reading within 17 verses of each other.

5. σπιλάς “spots/hidden reefs” (1:12) genuine lexical crux. Ranked fifth: this is not a doctrine-collision risk in the Korean-culture-specific sense (unlike ranks 1–4 above) but a straightforward exegetical crux inherited from the Greek text itself (cf. 2 Peter 2:13’s parallel). Still ranked because an unresolved crux left to Phase 2 translator discretion without a Phase 1/3 theologian ruling risks inconsistent renderings across parallel lesson materials referencing both Jude and 2 Peter.

6. 경건하지 아니한 (ungodly) stylistic-variation temptation across its 7 occurrences. Ranked sixth: lower doctrinal stakes than ranks 1–5 (no live syncretism-collision risk), but high consistency-failure risk given natural editorial pressure to vary repetitive vocabulary in readable prose; flagged because Jude’s rhetorical structure specifically depends on the repetition being felt.

7. 화평 vs. 평강 in the Jude 1:2 salutation. Ranked seventh (lowest of the ranked list, but still requiring explicit resolution before Phase 2 begins): this is a cross-curriculum consistency-vs.-local-convention tension already flagged in 08_core_glossary.md Part D.4, carried forward here as unresolved. Recommend Phase 1 leadership issue an explicit ruling (retain 화평 for cross-curriculum consistency, or grant a documented local exception for epistolary-salutation contexts) before Phase 2 processing of Jude 1:2 begins, so the decision is not left to individual Phase 2 workers.

---

5. Recommended Actions for translation_memory.json / doctrine_risk_registry.json Updates

1. Add 긍휼 (mercy) as a new Critical-risk entry in translation_memory.json, with alternatives_rejected explicitly including both 자비 and 복, and a notes field cross-referencing 은혜’s existing Critical entry to make the distinction discoverable from either term.
2. Add a new doctrine entry mercy_and_rescue_of_the_wavering to doctrine_risk_registry.json (Critical, human theologian routing), since no existing baseline doctrine entry covers this concept.
3. Add a new doctrine entry contending_for_the_faith (High, human theologian routing) and kept_by_god_and_presented_blameless (Critical, human theologian routing) and judgment_on_ungodly_false_teachers (High, human theologian routing) and ot_warnings_as_types (High, human theologian routing) and doxology_and_gods_preserving_power (High, human theologian routing) to extend risk-tier routing coverage to all six curriculum doctrines (this analysis assumes the forthcoming Step 9/10 doctrine risk registry update will formalize these; flagged here so Step 8 output is actionable input to that step).
4. Register the three-way κράτος/ἐξουσία/δύναμις distinction as a standing validation rule (not just a glossary note) in the Phase 2 AI requirements document, given its “invisible failure mode” ranking (§4, rank 3).
5. Route the σπιλάς (1:12) and 화평/평강 (1:2) open items to Phase 1 leadership for explicit resolution before Phase 2 begins, per ranks 5 and 7 above.

---

6. Full-Chapter Coverage Confirmation

Every verse of Jude 1:1–25 is represented in this analysis, either directly (doctrine matrix tables, §1) or via the crowded-neighborhood/transliteration/ranking cross-references (§§2–4). No verse or clause has been silently omitted. Verses 1–2 (salutation), 3–4 (thesis/false teachers introduced), 5–7 (three OT types), 8–10 (false teachers’ specific errors), 11 (three OT individual-types), 12–13 (nature-imagery indictment), 14–16 (Enoch citation and further indictment), 17–19 (apostolic warning applied), 20–23 (positive pastoral exhortation: build up, pray, wait, show mercy), and 24–25 (closing doxology) are each covered under their respective doctrine sections above.