Work with us

Tell us a bit about how you'd like to work with tri-bible.ai.

Doctrine Analysis

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

TierCountReview routingExample doctrines
Critical7Human theologian, every occurrenceSalvation, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise
High23Human theologianGospel, Apostleship, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles
Medium7Native speaker reviewPrayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism, Kingdom Mission
Low3Automated review onlyThanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship

Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do, and why Apostleship is unusually High here

Six of the seven Critical-risk doctrines share the property seen in other languages in this pipeline: a ready-made, fluent-sounding wrong answer exists (avatar-descent, reincarnation, one-guru-among-many). Salvation is the seventh, but for a different reason than any other language in this batch — its fluent-sounding word (ਮੁਕਤੀ) is not rejected but retained, which makes its risk management (mandatory glossing rather than substitution) the exception this registry has to track carefully. Apostleship, ordinarily Medium risk in comparable languages, is raised to High here because its tempting alternative (ਗੁਰੂ) is a reserved title in Sikh religious structure, not a loose synonym — misusing it is a category error with real potential for causing offense or confusion, not merely an imprecise word choice.

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 Punjabi is fluent without catching that it imports a Guru-mediated theological framework, or fails to distinguish Christian mukti from Sikh mukti. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit and sensitivity rather than doctrinal contradiction.