Executive Summary — Galatians — Destination Language: Polish

Why it matters: Galatians is Paul’s most concentrated polemical argument for justification by faith apart from works, delivered into a Polish destination culture whose dominant Catholic tradition, per the established Romans Language Package, already treats grace, faith, and righteousness as synergistic categories developed through sacramental merit-cooperation. Galatians states the grace/works antithesis more often and more starkly than Romans does anywhere, and it adds several letter-specific collision terms Romans never raised — Sacred Tradition (“tradycja”), the mortal-sin category (“odpadliście od łaski”), and Catholic mystical stigmata devotion (“stygmaty”). This curriculum cannot simply reuse Romans’ risk profile; it must sharpen it.

Key findings:

• 16 doctrines analyzed, spanning all 6 chapters of Galatians with full-book coverage confirmed (no chapter silently omitted): 11 Critical, 4 High, 1 Medium, 0 Low.
• 15 of 16 doctrines (94%) require mandatory human theologian review; only “Bearing One Another’s Burdens” is routed to native-speaker-only review. Zero doctrines are automated-only — a materially higher-intensity distribution than the Romans baseline.
• 72 terms seeded into translation memory (27 inherited from the Romans baseline package, 45 new to Galatians): 24 Critical, 26 High — 50 of 72 terms (69%) require theologian-level enforcement.
• Two terms anchor the entire letter’s argument and carry the highest translation stakes in the curriculum: “uczynki Prawa” (works of the Law) and “Zostałem ukrzyżowany z Chrystusem” (crucified with Christ) — both new to this curriculum, both Critical, both converging in the core passage, Galatians 2:15-21.
• Polish is lexically well-supplied for nearly every doctrine; the dominant challenge is not vocabulary invention but disambiguation against culturally dominant competing senses already familiar to Polish Catholic readers.

Risks:

• “Tradycja [ojców]” (Ga 1:14) risks being heard as commentary on the doctrine of Sacred Tradition (“Święta Tradycja”), inverting Paul’s actual autobiographical point about superseded ancestral Jewish custom.
• “Odpadliście od łaski” (Ga 5:4) risks collapsing into the familiar Catholic category of losing sanctifying grace through mortal sin, obscuring Paul’s real target: abandoning grace-as-justification-principle for law-works.
• “Uczynki Prawa” vs. “uczynki ciała” risk conflation via the shared noun “uczynki,” which would confuse legalism with moral vice — two unrelated problems in Paul’s argument.
• “Stygmaty” as a mistranslation of στίγματα (Ga 6:17) would import a supernatural devotional category (Padre Pio, St. Francis) entirely foreign to Paul’s plain reference to ordinary persecution scars.
• “Ciało” must silently carry two senses (neutral body vs. sin-nature) with no lexical marker distinguishing them — an unaddressed disambiguation risks a docetic/gnostic-adjacent misreading of the body as inherently evil.
• Capitalization drift (“Prawo” vs. “prawo Chrystusa”) and pluralization drift (“owoc” vs. “owoce Ducha”) are low-visibility, high-consequence risks likely to surface during batch Phase 2 processing or downstream typesetting.

Opportunities:

• Galatians’ sharper either/or argument structure makes synergistic softening more visible and therefore more correctable than in Romans — reviewers can pattern-match against a smaller number of load-bearing binary contrasts (grace/works, promise/law, flesh/Spirit, Sonship/adoption).
• The letter’s climactic “nowe stworzenie” (new creation) doctrine offers a natural teaching bridge for both practicing-Catholic and Evangelical/Protestant audiences, since all Christian traditions agree circumcision is not required for salvation — common ground the curriculum can build on before addressing the sharper Critical-tier distinctions.
• Poland’s strong ascetical and solidarity traditions (mutual charitable care, parish-centered community) give “Bearing One Another’s Burdens” — the curriculum’s only non-Critical/High doctrine — an unusually low-friction, high-resonance entry point into the letter.

Recommended actions:

1. Load assets/translation_memory.json (v2) and analysis/12_ai_translation_requirements.md before any Phase 2 segment translation; treat both as extending, never overriding, the Romans baseline package.
2. Route all segments touching Galatians 2:15-21 to mandatory human theologian review as a block, regardless of individual term risk, given the passage’s status as the letter’s theological hinge.
3. Enforce the mandatory disambiguating-note triggers for “tradycja [ojców],” “odpadliście od łaski,” morally-loaded “ciało” (first occurrence, 5:13), and “znamiona/blizny” as non-negotiable Phase 2 checklist items, not optional style guidance.
4. Build automated validation checks for the two highest-risk mechanical errors — capitalization drift (“Prawo”/“prawo Chrystusa”) and pluralization drift (“owoc”/“owoce Ducha”) — since these are checkable by pattern-matching and disproportionately damaging if missed.
5. Brief reviewer teams that Galatians’ doctrinal risk distribution (94% theologian-review routing) is materially heavier than Romans’, and staff Phase 2 Step 17 accordingly.

---

This summary consolidates analysis/07_semantic_analysis.md, analysis/08_core_glossary.md, analysis/06_linguistic_gap_analysis.md, analysis/04_comparative_theology.md, analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md, assets/translation_memory.json, assets/bible_term_registry.json, and assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json. It must be loaded first by any downstream reader as the entry point to the full Galatians Polish Language Package.