Linguistic Gap Analysis — Lamentations (English → Portuguese)

1. Purpose and Method

Lamentations poses a distinct linguistic-gap profile from Romans. Romans is doctrinal prose built from a relatively stable Koine Greek theological vocabulary that Portuguese Bible tradition (Almeida) has rendered consistently for centuries. Lamentations is Hebrew covenant lament poetry: acrostic, emotionally raw, and built around a cluster of closely related but not synonymous Hebrew terms for love, mercy, faithfulness, and hope (chesed, rachamim, emunah, yachal, qavah) that historic Portuguese translation has frequently collapsed into one or two overworked words (chiefly “misericórdia”). The gap analysis below therefore has two jobs the Romans baseline did not need to do at the same scale:

1. Identify genuine vocabulary gaps — Hebrew concepts for which no baseline term exists and for which common Portuguese usage offers no ready-made equivalent, requiring a newly coined or newly fenced Portuguese phrase.
2. Identify crowded semantic neighborhoods — Portuguese words (alma, esperar, misericórdia, justo, consolador, Senhor/SENHOR) that already carry heavy doctrinal or cultural freight from the Romans baseline, from historic Portuguese Bible tradition, or from Brazil’s Kardecist Spiritist and Afro-Brazilian religious landscape, and therefore require explicit fencing to prevent conceptual bleed.

Method: each Hebrew term from Lamentations 1-5 was checked against (a) the baseline translation_memory.json, (b) standard Almeida-tradition Portuguese Old Testament usage, and (c) the syncretism-risk map already established by the baseline for Kardecism, Catholic popular piety, and Afro-Brazilian traditions. Where the baseline already fixes a rendering (e.g., “salvação,” “pecado,” “profeta,” “Senhor”/“SENHOR”), that rendering is reused exactly and only the new contextual risk it acquires in Lamentations is analyzed.

---

2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Portuguese Terms	Weaknesses in Available Vocabulary	Recommended Strategy
Honest Grief and Lament before God	lamento, lamentação, choro, gemido, queixa, clamor	Portuguese has rich lament vocabulary, but “queixa” (complaint) and “reclamação” carry a petty, consumer-register connotation in everyday Brazilian usage (“reclamação” = a customer complaint) that trivializes covenantal protest addressed to God. Popular Brazilian piety (both Catholic and Evangelical) also carries a soft cultural pressure toward conformismo — quiet acceptance rather than voiced grief — which can mute the book’s actual rhetorical force if translators default to gentler vocabulary.	Use “lamento” / “lamentação” / “clamor” as primary register (dignified, liturgical, already used in Portuguese Bible poetic/prophetic books); avoid “reclamação” entirely. Teach explicitly, at first occurrence (1:1) and again at 3:1-18 and ch. 5, that lament is a sanctioned form of covenant speech to a personal God, not weak faith.
God’s Faithfulness amid Judgment (“Great Is Your Faithfulness”)	fidelidade, fiel, firmeza, constância	”Fidelidade” is lexically sound but is pre-loaded by the immensely popular Brazilian Evangelical/Pentecostal hymn “Grande É a Tua Fidelidade” (a translation of Thomas Chisholm’s hymn, itself based on this very verse), which frequently gets sung and heard as generalized reassurance detached from the specific covenant-judgment context of Lamentations 3. There is also a risk of “fidelidade” bleeding into “fé” (baseline: personal trust) territory, collapsing two distinct concepts.	Retain “fidelidade” (see Core Glossary) but require the accompanying teaching note to explicitly re-anchor the hymn’s language to its judgment-and-ruins setting (3:21-23 follows directly from the devastation of chs. 1-2). Keep “fidelidade” (emunah) and “fé” (baseline pistis) taught as distinct: fidelidade is God’s reliability over time; fé is the sufferer’s trust act.
The Justice of God’s Discipline	justo, justiça, disciplina, castigo, correção, ira	”Justiça” already carries Critical baseline freight from Romans as the forensic imputed-righteousness term. Applying the same base word to God’s governing/judicial righteousness in Lamentations 1:18 risks an unintended doctrinal merge (readers may assume Lamentations is teaching justification by faith rather than confessing God’s right to judge sin). “Castigo” and “disciplina” in Brazilian Portuguese can trend toward either overly harsh (corporal-punishment register) or overly therapeutic (parenting-manual register) connotations depending on context.	Use “justo” for the attribute-confession sense (1:18) with an explicit contextual gloss distinguishing it from Romans’ forensic “justiça imputada” (see Core Glossary). Use “castigo” for concrete judgment language (4:22) paired with “cumprido/consumado” to stress boundedness. Use “disciplina” sparingly and only with the corrective, restorative sense reinforced by 3:31-33, never standing alone without that pairing.
Hope Anchored in God’s Steadfast Love	esperança, esperar, confiança, amor leal, misericórdia	This is the most crowded neighborhood in the whole curriculum. Standard Portuguese Bible tradition renders both chesed and rachamim as “misericórdia,” erasing Lamentations 3:22’s own internal Hebrew distinction. “Esperança” alone, absent the settled-trust nuance of yachal/qavah, risks sliding toward either (a) generic emotional optimism or (b) — given Brazil’s religious landscape — a fatalistic “que seja o que Deus quiser” resignation, or (c) a Kardecist “evolução espiritual” self-improvement framing.	Fence with three distinct Portuguese phrases: “amor leal” (chesed), “misericórdias” (rachamim), “fidelidade” (emunah), never allowing any of the three to substitute for another. Pair “esperar/ter esperança” (yachal, qavah) consistently with an object (“nele,” “no SENHOR”) to keep hope relational and active, never abstract or self-directed.
Corporate Confession of Sin	pecado, transgressão, rebelião, iniquidade, culpa, arrepender-se	Baseline “pecado” (Medium risk in Romans) under-signals the corporate, inter-generational, and specifically national dimension Lamentations requires (1:8, 14, 18; 5:7). “Culpa” in everyday Brazilian Portuguese trends toward psychological guilt-feeling rather than objective covenant liability. “Arrepender-se” is doctrinally sound but is also the standard Evangelical altar-call term, which can make 3:40 and 5:21 sound like an individual conversion appeal rather than a corporate national confession.	Reuse baseline “pecado” but elevate its risk tier to High for this curriculum (per Core Glossary) and consistently pair it with corporate-agreement language (“nós,” “os nossos pais,” “confessamos”) rather than isolated individual-confession phrasing. Add “transgredimos e nos rebelamos” (3:42) and “levamos as suas iniquidades” (5:7) as fixed corporate-confession phrases, distinct from personal-conversion register.

---

3. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

3.1 Genuine Lexical Gaps (no adequate existing term)

These are Hebrew concepts for which the baseline provides no entry at all, and for which ordinary Portuguese usage offers no single word carrying the full theological weight — a new compound phrase must be coined and fixed in translation memory.

Gap	Why the Gap Exists	Chosen Fill	Fencing Required
chesed (covenant loyalty-love)	Portuguese has no single word combining “covenant obligation” + “faithful love” the way chesed does; “amor” alone is too generic, “lealdade” alone lacks the warmth, “graça” is reserved by the baseline for NT charis.	”amor leal” (compound phrase, newly coined for this curriculum)	Must never be interchanged with baseline “graça,” with “misericórdias” (rachamim), or with “fidelidade” (emunah). Critical risk; mandatory theologian review every occurrence.
rachamim (visceral, womb-rooted compassion)	Historic Almeida tradition collapses this into “misericórdia” together with chesed, erasing the Hebrew’s own internal distinction within a single verse (3:22).	“misericórdias” (plural, reserved exclusively for rachamim in this curriculum)	Must not be used for chesed. Teach the Hebrew root (rechem, “womb”) to justify the tenderness nuance if teaching context allows.
emunah (God’s temporal reliability in keeping covenant word)	No baseline entry distinct from “fé” (pistis, personal trust-act). Existing hymnic tradition risks flattening the term into vague sentiment.	”fidelidade”	Distinguish from “fé” (the sufferer’s trust) and from “amor leal” (God’s loyalty-disposition); “fidelidade” specifically names God’s track record of keeping promises through time.
yachal / qavah (settled, active, relational waiting-hope)	Portuguese “esperança” without further qualification does not distinguish settled covenant expectation from generic optimism or resigned fatalism.	”esperar / ter esperança,” always with an explicit divine object (“nele,” “no SENHOR”)	Must never stand as free-floating optimism; must always be relationally anchored in the text and in teaching notes.
chelek (allotted covenant portion/inheritance)	Portuguese “herança” alone carries folk-Catholic connotations of inherited family blessing/curse rather than the OT covenant-allotment concept (cf. Levites’ portion, Numbers 18:20).	“porção,” with a first-occurrence contextual gloss	Requires a brief explanatory note the first time it appears (3:24) so the OT background is not assumed.
menachem (comforter/one who comforts) as a personal, structural refrain	Portuguese “consolador” is lexically available but not “gapped” linguistically — the gap here is not lexical but proprietary: Allan Kardec explicitly claimed the title “o Consolador” (from John 14) for Spiritism itself.	”consolador / consolo” (retained)	Not a translation gap but a claim-collision requiring mandatory explicit distinguishing teaching at every occurrence (see §4 and ranked list, §6).

3.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are cases where an adequate Portuguese word exists but is already carrying other theological or cultural freight — from the Romans baseline, from Portuguese Bible tradition generally, or from Brazil’s religious landscape — such that Lamentations’ use of the same word risks bleeding into, or being read through, that other freight.

Portuguese Word	Competing Occupants of the Neighborhood	Fencing Strategy
alma	(1) Baseline has no direct entry, but general Portuguese Christian usage assumes an immortal, individual soul; (2) Kardecist Spiritism teaches “alma”/“espírito” as a pre-existent entity migrating through successive incarnations toward moral perfection — a mainstream, not fringe, Brazilian belief.	Gloss nephesh (3:20, 24) as “alma / todo o meu ser,” foregrounding “todo o meu ser” (whole self) in teaching materials, explicitly denying the detachable, reincarnating-essence reading.
justo / justiça	(1) Baseline Critical entry: “justiça” = forensic imputed righteousness received by faith (Romans 3-5); (2) Lamentations 1:18 uses the same root for God’s judicial righteousness in bringing judgment — a different, non-soteriological sense.	Every occurrence of “justo” applied to God’s judgment (1:18) requires a contextual note distinguishing it from the imputation sense; never let a learner infer Lamentations is teaching justification by faith at this point.
esperar / esperança	(1) Baseline “peace” (Medium) and general Christian hope vocabulary; (2) Brazilian folk-religious fatalism (“que seja o que Deus quiser”); (3) Kardecist “evolução espiritual,” a hope grounded in the self’s own accumulating moral progress across lives.	Always pair with an explicit divine object; teaching notes must state hope here rests on God’s unchanging character (3:22-23), not self-improvement or passive fate-acceptance.
consolador / consolo	Direct, explicit rival claim: Allan Kardec’s Spiritism self-identifies as “o Consolador” promised in John 14, a claim embedded in Brazilian Spiritist self-understanding at the founding-text level, not a marginal folk association.	Mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence (chapter 1 refrain); explicit contrastive teaching note required distinguishing the personal covenant God/Holy Spirit from Kardecist mediumistic revelation claiming the same title.
Senhor / SENHOR	Baseline Critical entry for kyrios (“Senhor,” Romans 10:9, exclusive supreme lordship); Lamentations requires the additional small-caps “SENHOR” convention for the tetragrammaton (YHWH), distinct from ordinary “Senhor” (Adonai).	Preserve Almeida’s small-caps convention rigorously; every instance of the covenant name must be typographically distinguished, both to maintain continuity with the baseline’s Romans 10:9 teaching and to resist an impersonal “universal force” reading resonant with Kardecist/Umbanda theology.
ungido / Messias	Baseline Critical entry “Messias” (Christos/Mashiach, the unique NT-fulfilled Anointed One). Lamentations 4:20 uses the cognate root for the historical Davidic king (Zedekiah).	Never render 4:20 as “o Messias.” Fixed rendering: “o ungido do SENHOR.” Mandatory theologian review to prevent both wrongful historicization of NT messianic hope and wrongful direct-messianic reading of this specific lament.
pecado	Baseline Medium-risk term (Romans, personal transgression before a holy God); Kardecism reframes moral failure as “erro a ser corrigido em vidas futuras” (an error worked off across future incarnations).	Reuse baseline term but raise risk tier to High in this curriculum (corporate-confession emphasis); pair consistently with corporate/historical resolution language, explicitly excluding a deferred-across-lifetimes framing.
castigo / disciplina	Popular Brazilian usage ranges from harsh corporal-punishment connotations to therapeutic self-help register; neither alone conveys purposeful, bounded, covenant-restorative discipline.	Always pair “castigo”/“disciplina” language with the boundedness clauses of 3:31-33 and 4:22 (“não rejeitará para sempre,” “está cumprido/consumado”) so severity and restoration are taught together.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
Abba	Retain transliterated, paired with “Pai” (baseline convention, “Aba, Pai”)	No change needed for Lamentations; this term does not recur in this book, but the convention is preserved for cross-document consistency per the baseline’s theological consistency rules.
YHWH (tetragrammaton)	Paraphrase via fixed convention, not transliteration: small-caps “SENHOR”	Transliterating as “Iavé” or “Jeová” would break continuity with the entire Almeida-tradition Portuguese Bible corpus this curriculum’s audience already knows, and would introduce an unfamiliar form with no established liturgical footing. Small-caps “SENHOR” preserves both readability and the baseline’s Critical Lordship-of-Christ continuity (Romans 10:9).
chesed	Paraphrase, not transliteration: “amor leal”	Hebrew transliteration (“chesed”) would be opaque to a general Brazilian audience with no Hebrew training and would function as an unglossed technical term; a fixed Portuguese compound phrase is more teachable and more consistently reproducible across translators.
rachamim	Paraphrase: “misericórdias”	Same rationale; additionally, “misericórdia” already has deep roots in Portuguese devotional vocabulary (e.g., “Senhor, tende misericórdia”), making it the more natural choice for the tenderness/compassion register specifically, once fenced off from chesed.
emunah	Paraphrase: “fidelidade”	Widely intelligible, and already anchored culturally via the “Grande É a Tua Fidelidade” hymn tradition (a double-edged asset, addressed in §2 above via required re-anchoring teaching notes).
menachem	Paraphrase: “consolador / consolo”	Transliteration is not linguistically meaningful here (this is a common Hebrew participle, not a proper name or technical term); the risk is not lexical opacity but doctrinal collision with Kardecism’s claim on the same Portuguese word, addressed by mandatory fencing rather than by avoiding the natural Portuguese term.
meshiach YHWH (4:20)	Paraphrase: “o ungido do SENHOR” — explicitly NOT “o Messias”	Deliberate divergence from the cognate baseline term to prevent a false messianic reading of a historical-king reference; see §3.2.
nephesh	Paraphrase, dual-gloss: “alma / todo o meu ser”	A single-word transliteration or single-word paraphrase would either sound foreign (Hebrew “nephesh” untransliterated) or trigger the Kardecist “alma” association unfenced; the dual-gloss approach lets “alma” serve as the recognizable surface term while “todo o meu ser” carries the corrective doctrinal weight in teaching contexts.
Proper names (Sião/Zion, Davi, Zedekias if referenced, Edom)	Retain established Portuguese Bible forms per baseline convention (see baseline’s Transliteration and Proper Name Standards)	No new decision required; Lamentations introduces no proper name absent from standard Almeida-tradition usage.
Hebrew acrostic structure (chs. 1-4, especially ch. 3’s triple-acrostic)	Not transliterated or reproduced formally; paraphrase as free verse with a translator’s structural note	Portuguese alphabetical order cannot reproduce the Hebrew aleph-bet acrostic; attempting a forced Portuguese-alphabet acrostic would distort word choice and risk doctrinal compromise for the sake of a formal effect invisible to the reader anyway. A structural footnote explaining the acrostic form for teaching purposes is recommended instead.

---

5. Full-Book Coverage: Chapter-by-Chapter Linguistic Notes

Per the full-book coverage mandate, every chapter has been reviewed for load-bearing vocabulary. Chapters or sections contributing no new terms beyond those already tabled are explicitly noted as reviewed below.

• Chapter 1 — Load-bearing: “filha de Sião,” “consolador” (refrain, vv. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21), “pecado / transgressão,” “justo” (v. 18). Reviewed in full; no additional gaps beyond those tabled in §2-3.
• Chapter 2 — Load-bearing: “ira” (vv. 1-6, 21-22), “propósito / o que determinou” (v. 17), “santuário” (vv. 6-7), “falsas visões / profetas” (v. 14). Reviewed in full; no additional gaps.
• Chapter 3, vv. 1-18 (pre-core-passage lament) — Load-bearing: “vara da sua ira” (v. 1), “o homem” (v. 1, representative sufferer). This section’s unrelenting complaint vocabulary (darkness, walls, arrows, gall/wormwood) is standard descriptive language already covered under “affliction and wandering” / “wormwood and gall” in the term registry; no new gaps identified. Reviewed in full.
• Chapter 3, vv. 19-26 (core passage) — Full gap analysis in §2-4 above (remember, soul, hope, steadfast love, mercies, faithfulness, portion, good, wait for/hope in, seek, wait quietly, salvation). This is the theological anchor and receives the pipeline’s deepest treatment, but is not the scope boundary.
• Chapter 3, vv. 27-42 — Load-bearing: “não rejeitará para sempre” (v. 31), “não é de coração que ele aflige” (v. 33), “voltar / tornar / arrepender-se” (v. 40), “transgredimos e nos rebelamos” (v. 42). Reviewed in full.
• Chapter 3, vv. 43-66 — Continues the lament register of vv. 1-18 (enemies, pit, drowning, imprecation building toward v. 64-66’s “retribuir / dar o pagamento merecido”). No additional lexical gaps beyond the recompense term already tabled; reviewed in full and explicitly flagged as reinforcing (not contradicting) the hope of vv. 19-26 — the coexistence of raw complaint and settled hope within one chapter is itself a key teaching point, not a translation problem to smooth over.
• Chapter 4 — Load-bearing: “o ungido do SENHOR” (v. 20), “o castigo da tua iniquidade está cumprido / consumado” (v. 22). Reviewed in full; the chapter’s extended famine and siege imagery (vv. 1-10) uses standard descriptive vocabulary with no significant syncretism risk.
• Chapter 5 — Load-bearing: “lembra-te” (corporate remembering, v. 1), “os nossos pais pecaram… e nós levamos as suas iniquidades” (v. 7), “renova os nossos dias como antigamente” (v. 21, intertextual with 3:23), “a não ser que nos tenhas rejeitado totalmente” (v. 22, the book’s unresolved closing clause). Reviewed in full; this chapter’s corporate voice (first-person plural throughout) has no distinct new vocabulary beyond the terms tabled but requires a grammatical-register note: translators must maintain first-person-plural (“nós,” “os nossos”) consistently throughout to preserve the corporate-confession genre, not slide into first-person-singular devotional register.

Coverage confirmation: all five chapters of Lamentations have been reviewed. No chapter or section was silently omitted.

---

6. Ranked List of This Book’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of doctrinal stakes and likelihood of misreading given Brazil’s specific religious landscape.

1. “Consolador” (comforter, ch. 1 refrain) vs. Kardecism’s explicit self-identification as “o Consolador” — Highest risk in the entire curriculum because the collision is not merely conceptual (as with most Critical baseline terms) but proprietary: Allan Kardec personally claimed this exact title for Spiritism, citing John 14. A Brazilian reader encountering “ela não tem consolador” (1:2) unfenced could plausibly hear an implicit opening for the Kardecist claim to fill that void. Requires the strongest possible mandatory theologian review and explicit contrastive teaching at every occurrence.

2. “Amor leal” / “misericórdias” / “fidelidade” (chesed / rachamim / emunah) fencing at 3:22-23 — The core passage’s theological center of gravity. If historic Almeida-tradition collapse of chesed and rachamim into a single “misericórdia” is allowed to stand, or if any of the three terms bleeds into baseline “graça,” the passage’s argument (God’s own covenant character, not the sufferer’s merit, is the ground of hope) is structurally weakened at the exact point the curriculum is built around.

3. “Alma” (nephesh) at 3:20, 24 — Given Brazil’s status as the world’s largest Spiritist population (per baseline notes on “resurrection” and “salvation”), an unfenced “minha alma” in a passage about hope and waiting is highly susceptible to a reincarnation-adjacent reading of the self as a migrating, evolving spirit-essence rather than the whole embodied person addressed by, and answerable to, God within this one life.

4. “Justo” (1:18) vs. baseline “justiça imputada” (Romans 3-5) — Same root word carrying two theologically distinct senses (God’s judicial righteousness in judging sin vs. the believer’s forensically credited righteousness) across two documents in the same curriculum pipeline. Cross-document confusion risk is real precisely because both are marked Critical/High in their respective contexts and share a surface form.

5. “O ungido do SENHOR” vs. “o Messias” (4:20) — A lexical near-miss (same Hebrew root as baseline’s Critical “Messias” entry) applied to a historical king. Mistranslating this as “o Messias” would be a clean, quotable doctrinal error (directly messianizing a lament over a captured king) that a reviewer might not catch without this specific flag, since the English source text itself sometimes glosses this figure loosely as “the LORD’s anointed” in ways that read messianically to an English ear.

6. “Não rejeitará para sempre” / “está cumprido” (3:31; 4:22) vs. Kardecist open-ended karmic accounting — The doctrine of bounded discipline is one of the sharpest points of contrast with Kardecism’s doctrine of an indefinitely extended series of reincarnations in which a spirit’s moral account is never definitively closed; softening the finality language here (e.g., rendering “para sempre” ambiguously) would blunt one of the curriculum’s most theologically productive contrasts.

7. “Voltar / tornar / arrepender-se” (shuv, 3:40; 5:21) in corporate vs. individual register — Because “arrepender-se” is also the standard Brazilian Evangelical altar-call term, there is a real risk that a corporate national confession will be heard as an individual conversion appeal, especially by readers formed primarily in Pentecostal devotional culture. Requires consistent first-person-plural framing (see §5, ch. 5 note) to preserve the corporate genre.

8. “Esperar” (yachal/qavah) drifting into fatalism or self-directed hope — Lower theological stakes than items 1-3 but high likelihood of occurrence given how pervasive both religious fatalism (“Deus sabe o que faz,” said resignedly) and Kardecist self-improvement framing are in everyday Brazilian religious speech; requires the relational-object-pairing discipline noted in §3.2 at every occurrence, not just the core passage.

9. “A não ser que nos tenhas rejeitado totalmente” (5:22) — resisting resolution — The risk here is not syncretism but pastoral over-correction: a well-meaning translator or teacher softening the book’s genuinely unresolved final question into false comfort would misrepresent the mature theological structure of the whole book (hope in 3:19-26 held together with an open wound in 5:22). Flagged as high-risk precisely because the “safe” translator instinct (resolve the ambiguity comfortingly) is the wrong instinct here.

10. “Castigo”/“disciplina” register drift (throughout, esp. ch. 2 and 4:22) — Lower doctrinal stakes but real clarity risk: Brazilian Portuguese usage can pull these terms toward either harsh corporal-punishment connotations or soft therapeutic self-help connotations, neither of which alone conveys the purposeful, bounded, covenant-restorative sense the book requires; mitigated by the mandatory pairing rule in §2/§3.2 rather than by word choice alone.

---

7. Recommendations for Phase 2 Handoff

1. Merge all new terms identified in §2-4 into translation_memory.json as version 2, incrementing from the Romans baseline, before any Phase 2 segment translation of Lamentations begins, per the baseline’s term-discovery protocol.
2. Add a Lamentations-specific escalation clause to the AI system prompt (baseline 12_ai_translation_requirements.md) explicitly listing: consolador/comforter, amor leal/chesed, misericórdias/rachamim, alma/nephesh, o ungido do SENHOR, não rejeitará para sempre, and the unresolved 5:22 clause as mandatory-theologian-review triggers, mirroring the escalation-rule structure already established for Romans.
3. Preserve the small-caps SENHOR/Senhor typographic distinction as a hard validation rule in Phase 2, parallel to the baseline’s “Lord confession” validation rule for Romans 10:9.
4. Require a consistency check at Phase 2 Step 17 (Doctrinal Fidelity Review) specifically comparing the rendering of “novas cada manhã” (3:23) against “renova os nossos dias como antigamente” (5:21) to confirm the intertextual echo is preserved, per the ranked-risk item and Core Glossary note.
5. This document, analysis/08_core_glossary.md, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json must all be updated together and cross-checked for internal consistency before Phase 1 sign-off; no term rendering fixed here may be altered downstream without a corresponding update to all four artifacts.