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

Unlike languages with a settled Christian translation tradition, Maithili’s Critical-risk cluster is driven less by an existing wrong word already fixed in common usage, and more by the absence of any settled word at all, combined with two live competing frameworks: generic Hindu karma/rebirth vocabulary, and Mithila’s own locally rooted Ramayana narrative (Sita’s birthplace, the Sita-Ram marriage, and the Sita virtue-exemplar). A translator defaulting to “whatever sounds natural and devotional” in Maithili is more likely than in most other languages in this pipeline to land on a term that is regionally specific and doctrinally wrong, rather than a generic pan-Hindu term that a reviewer would catch more easily.

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 Maithili is fluent and even regionally apt without catching that it draws on Mithila’s own Ramayana-rooted theology rather than biblical doctrine. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit and register rather than doctrinal contradiction.