06 — Linguistic Gap Analysis: 2 John (English–Sanskrit)

0. Scope and Method

2 John is a single chapter of 13 verses. “Full-book coverage” for this curriculum therefore means every verse has been checked against the baseline Romans Language Package and against the four assigned curriculum doctrines (Walking in Truth and Love; Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation; Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment; Perseverance in the Teaching of Christ). No verse is silently skipped; verses contributing no new terminology are noted as reviewed in §5.

This document does not re-derive the glossary (see 08_core_glossary.md) or the registry entries (see bible_term_registry.json additions already drafted for this curriculum). It performs the specific Phase 1 Step 8 task: identifying where Sanskrit’s vocabulary is missing outright (a gap requiring paraphrase, compounding, or transliteration) versus where Sanskrit’s vocabulary is crowded (an existing, well-theorized term whose classical baggage must be fenced off), and it ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for translator attention.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the four assigned doctrines, this matrix lists the available Sanskrit terms considered, their specific weaknesses, and the recommended strategy. This extends, but does not contradict, the baseline package.

1.1 Doctrine: Walking in Truth and Love (vv.1–6)

Concept	Candidate Sanskrit terms	Weakness of each candidate	Recommended strategy
Truth	सत्यम्, ऋतम्, यथार्थम्	सत्यम् is Brahman’s own self-predicate (Taittirīya Up. 2.1.1, satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma) — risks a jñāna-mārga, Self-realization reading, especially paired with “know” (v.1). ऋतम् is even more heavily Vedic (cosmic ṛta-order). यथार्थम् (“that which accords with fact”) is doctrinally safer but breaks continuity with likely Serampore-tradition precedent and sounds thin for a term this book uses seven times as a virtual proper noun (“the Truth”).	No escape available — mandatory fencing. Retain सत्यम् for continuity and gravity, but require an explicit redefinition gloss at first occurrence per document: “fidelity to the apostolic gospel concerning the incarnate, historical Christ, not identity of the self with an impersonal Absolute.” This is a crowded-neighborhood problem, not a missing-vocabulary one.
Love	प्रेम, भक्तिः, स्नेहः, कृपा (rejected — see mercy)	प्रेम is Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism’s technical apex term (Rūpa Gosvāmī’s rasa-classified prema-bhakti) — risks being heard as a cultivated devotional attainment. भक्तिः names an entire soteriological path (as already established under baseline “faith”). स्नेहः names only affection between kin/friends, too weak for the letter’s repeated command-and-obedience framing (vv.5–6).	Retain प्रेम with mandatory gloss: God’s own commanded, given character, not a cultivated bhakti-rasa attainment. Fence, do not replace — no less-crowded alternative carries sufficient weight for a command repeated three times in six verses.
Commandment	आज्ञा, विधिः (baseline “law”), नियमः (baseline “covenant,” rejected there)	विधिः is reserved by the baseline for Torah/scriptural-injunction weight (Pūrva Mīmāṃsā) — importing it here would wrongly equate this relational, Christ-mediated charge with Mosaic Law’s formal category. नियमः is reserved (rejected) for “covenant” due to its Yoga Sūtra niyama sense.	आज्ञा is available and comparatively untheorized as a load-bearing philosophical category (it is grammatically ordinary — “command, order”); recommend pairing with relational language (“the Father’s commandment, given in love”) at first use so it does not read as bare arbitrary order.
Walk / conduct	आचरणम्, धर्माचरणम् (forbidden), वृत्तिः	धर्माचरणम् is explicitly forbidden, reusing the baseline obedience_of_faith reasoning (varṇāśrama duty-performance). वृत्तिः risks Yoga Sūtra 1.2’s citta-vṛtti (mental modification) technical sense.	आचरणम् (habitual conduct, life-pattern) is the least encumbered available noun; retain, with no additional gloss required beyond the general caution against धर्म-compounding anywhere in this doctrine’s vocabulary.

1.2 Doctrine: Warning against Deceivers Denying the Incarnation (v.7)

Concept	Candidate Sanskrit terms	Weakness of each candidate	Recommended strategy
Deceiver	वञ्चकः, मायावी, कुहकः	मायावी (“illusion-worker/possessor of māyā”) is explicitly avoided: it would ironically invoke the very māyā-doctrine this book’s anti-Docetic Incarnation teaching stands against (the deceivers deny real flesh; māyā names unreal appearance — using मायावी would confusingly align the deceiver-word with the deceiver’s own false Docetic content). कुहकः is archaic/rare, risking obscurity for a scholarly but non-native-speaker readership.	वञ्चकः is confirmed as correct: ordinary cheat/impostor register, no darśana attachment, and crucially does not itself invoke māyā-vocabulary.
The world (moral sphere)	लोकः, जगत्, संसारः	जगत् is doctrinally poisoned for this specific verse: Advaita classifies jagat as mithyā (provisionally/ultimately unreal), which would undercut “deceivers have gone out into the world” — the world here must be real and morally consequential, precisely the opposite implication. संसारः names the cycle of transmigration/worldly entanglement (Sāṃkhya-Yoga-Vedānta shared technical term) — wrong register entirely, importing rebirth-cosmology into a phrase about geographic/social spread of false teachers.	लोकः is the least-bad available option but is itself a crowded neighborhood (the Purāṇic fourteen lokas as cosmic planes). Requires a contextual fixing note: “human society,” not a specific cosmic plane. This is a genuine missing-vocabulary gap: Sanskrit has no term for “the ordinary human moral sphere” that is simultaneously free of both illusion-metaphysics (जगत्) and rebirth-cosmology (संसार) and plane-cosmology (लोक). लोकः is chosen as the least damaging compromise, not a clean fit.
Confess / deny	अङ्गीकरणम्/अङ्गीकरोति ↔ निषेधः/अस्वीकरणम्	No major rival technical sense competes for “confess” itself; the risk is entirely about consistency (this verb underlies Romans 10:9’s confession formula, and the baseline never isolated it as its own entry).	Fix अङ्गीकरणम् as the standing verb-noun for ὁμολογέω across the whole Pauline-Johannine curriculum set (already done in the registry addition); use अस्वीकरणम् or निषेधः as the negation for “does not confess” (v.7), explicitly glossed as public, binding denial, not private doubt.
Antichrist	ख्रीष्टविरोधी, अन्तीख्रीष्टः, प्रतिख्रीष्टः	अन्तीख्रीष्टः (pure transliteration) risks being read as a proper name/title of a rival deity-candidate rather than “opponent of,” especially to a reader trained in Puranic accounts of asuras contesting devas for cosmic rule — a category that could (wrongly) normalize antichrist as one contestant among many in a mythological rivalry-narrative. प्रतिख्रीष्टः (“counter-Christ,” prati- prefix) risks sounding like a legitimate counterpart or mirror-figure rather than a false claimant.	ख्रीष्टविरोधी (“opponent/adversary of Christ,” वि-रोधिन्) is preferred as primary: it names direct hostility, not rivalry-for-the-same-throne. Retain अन्तीख्रीष्टः only as a parallel transliteration gloss for cross-reference to 1 John/Revelation curricula, never as the primary rendering.

1.3 Doctrine: Hospitality and Doctrinal Discernment (vv.8, 10–11)

Concept	Candidate Sanskrit terms	Weakness of each candidate	Recommended strategy
Receive into house	गृहे स्वीकरणम्, अतिथिसत्कारः, आतिथ्यम्	अतिथिसत्कारः/आतिथ्यम् (the classical dharmaśāstra “guest-honoring” duty — atithi-devo bhava, “the guest is [as] God”) is tempting for fluency but is exactly wrong doctrinally: it names a nearly unconditional social-religious duty to honor any guest (rooted in Taittirīya Upaniṣad’s śikṣāvallī and elaborated across dharmaśāstra), which would directly contradict this passage’s point — that hospitality to a false teacher must be withheld, precisely breaking the ordinary guest-duty norm.	गृहे स्वीकरणम् is correct precisely because it lacks the automatic guest-honor-duty weight of आतिथ्यम्; it names an act of endorsement/reception that can be rightly given or rightly withheld depending on doctrine, not a near-absolute social obligation. Retain baseline स्वीकरणम् root; flag against any translator “upgrading” to आतिथ्यम् for smoother register — that smoothness is precisely the theological problem.
Formal greeting (χαίρειν)	अभिवादनम्, नमस्कारः, वन्दनम्	अभिवादनम् activates Manusmṛti 2.120–125’s hierarchical junior-to-elder ritual etiquette (reciting name/lineage to a social superior) — risks reframing withheld greeting as a breach of manners/varṇa-hierarchy rather than principled doctrinal non-endorsement. नमस्कारः/वन्दनम् are devotionally loaded (used toward deities/gurus in worship contexts), which would overstate the ordinariness of a mere formal salutation and risk making its withholding sound like withholding worship rather than withholding public doctrinal legitimation.	अभिवादनम् is retained as least-bad (per prior glossary) but MUST carry an explicit note at every occurrence: this is deliberate doctrinal discernment, not an etiquette violation and not a worship-refusal. This is a crowded neighborhood requiring fencing, not a missing-vocabulary problem — all three candidates are theorized, none neutral.
Share/take part in (v.11, negative)	सहभागी भवति, सहयोगः, संलिप्तता	सहयोगः (“cooperation”) is too weak/neutral, missing the moral complicity sense. संलिप्तता (“being smeared/tainted/implicated”) captures complicity well but has no prior baseline anchor and would introduce a wholly new root unconnected to the positive fellowship term family, losing the deliberate irony Paul/John intend (the same participation-word used positively elsewhere is here inverted).	सहभागी भवति retained: deliberately reuses baseline सहभागिता root so the irony (positive fellowship-word turned negative through context) is visible to a scholarly reader tracking the term family across the curriculum, with a mandatory note flagging the valence inversion.

1.4 Doctrine: Perseverance in the Teaching of Christ (vv.8–9)

Concept	Candidate Sanskrit terms	Weakness of each candidate	Recommended strategy
Teaching/doctrine of Christ	उपदेशः, शिक्षा, शास्त्रम्, आगमः	शिक्षा is a proper technical name for one of the six Vedāṅgas (Vedic phonetics/pronunciation science) — a hard collision, wrong subject matter entirely. शास्त्रम् is too tied to the dharmaśāstra legal-ritual genre (per baseline law reasoning). आगमः names an entire class of (typically Tantric/Āgamic) revealed scripture with its own transmission theory independent of, and sometimes rivaling, Vedic authority — introducing a whole separate scriptural-authority system where none is wanted. उपदेशः itself carries strong guru-śiṣya personal-instruction connotations (a guru’s evolving, personally-adapted teaching to a disciple).	उपदेशः (qualified ख्रीष्टस्य उपदेशः) is least damaging of a crowded field. Mandatory gloss at first use: this is fixed, once-given, apostolic doctrine about Christ, received and guarded unchanged — not a guru’s personally adapted, potentially evolving instruction varying by lineage. This directly parallels and reinforces the baseline’s रejection of गुरुः for “apostle.”
Abide / remain	तिष्ठति, स्थिरता, स्थितिः	स्थितिः/तिष्ठति faintly echoes the Bhagavad Gītā’s sthitaprajña (2.55–72, the sage of steady wisdom) and Yoga’s sthiti — a broadly helpful, not damaging, resonance (steadiness is a shared positive value), but must still be anchored relationally lest it drift toward a self-achieved meditative equilibrium independent of any doctrinal content.	तिष्ठति retained; gloss “abiding in the teaching of Christ” explicitly relationally, not an autonomous meditative attainment. Lower priority for fencing than the Critical/High items above — flagged Medium.
Labor / work (v.8)	परिश्रमः, कर्म, प्रयत्नः	कर्म forbidden here: paired directly with “reward” in the same verse, कर्म would trigger the automatic karma-mīmāṃsā causal doctrine (action mechanically yields its own fruit) — exactly the works-merit structure grace/reward-language in this book must be kept distinct from. प्रयत्नः (“effort/endeavor”) is acceptable but slightly more generic/weak than परिश्रमः’s connotation of sustained toil matching the missionary-labor sense.	परिश्रमः retained. Hard forbidden-substitution flag on कर्म here, parallel to the baseline’s कर्मफलम् prohibition for “providence”/“reward.”
Reward	पुरस्कारः, कर्मफलम् (forbidden), फलम् (forbidden by extension), प्रतिफलम्	कर्मफलम् and bare फलम् both invoke the automatic-fruit-of-action doctrine, precisely the wrong causal structure (see baseline providence). प्रतिफलम् (“return-fruit/recompense”) sits close enough to फलम्’s family to risk the same reading by association even if not identical.	पुरस्कारः (qualified पूर्णः पुरस्कारः, “full reward”) retained as the clean escape: a term for a personally, relationally granted prize/honor, with no कर्मफलम्-family root at all.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

Sanskrit’s problem in this letter is overwhelmingly one of crowded neighborhoods (too many well-theorized rival senses competing for the same slot) rather than true vocabulary gaps (no term exists at all). This matches the baseline package’s general finding for Romans and is, if anything, sharper here because 2 John compresses several of the most doctrinally loaded terms (truth, love, confess, incarnation, world, teaching) into only 13 verses.

2.1 Crowded neighborhoods requiring active fencing (ranked by severity)

Term	Competing classical system(s)	Fencing required
सत्यम् (truth)	Advaita Vedānta (satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma)	Mandatory redefinition every occurrence; cannot be avoided by lexical substitution
देहधारणम् (incarnation)	Bhagavad Gītā 4.7–8 avatāra doctrine	Mandatory Gītā citation/contrast note every occurrence (already fixed by baseline; re-confirmed as this letter’s single most theologically load-bearing verse, v.7)
प्रेम (love)	Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava prema-bhakti-rasa theology	Mandatory gloss distinguishing commanded/given character from cultivated devotional attainment
उपदेशः (teaching of Christ)	guru-śiṣya-paramparā personal instruction model	Mandatory gloss: fixed apostolic doctrine, not evolving personal/lineage instruction
अभिवादनम् (formal greeting)	Manusmṛti 2.120–125 hierarchical etiquette	Mandatory gloss: doctrinal discernment, not etiquette/hierarchy breach
आतिथ्यम् / अतिथिसत्कारः (candidate for “receive into house,” REJECTED)	atithi devo bhava dharmaśāstra guest-duty	Excluded entirely from use; गृहे स्वीकरणम् substituted instead
लोकः (world)	Purāṇic fourteen-loka cosmology	Contextual fixing note: ordinary human society, not a cosmic plane
सहभागी भवति (share/take part, negative)	Baseline positive fellowship (सहभागिता)	Valence-inversion note: same root, opposite moral direction
कृपा (mercy)	Baseline grace (which explicitly rejected कृपा as a grace-substitute)	Co-occurrence note at v.3 distinguishing कृपा from अनुग्रहः

2.2 Genuine missing-vocabulary gaps (no clean classical term exists)

Only two true gaps were identified where Sanskrit lacks any term free of significant doctrinal baggage, requiring a least-damaging compromise rather than a clean escape:

1. “The world” as morally serious, real, ordinary human society (v.7) — जगत् is poisoned by mithyā-illusion doctrine; संसारः is poisoned by rebirth-cycle doctrine; लोकः is poisoned by plane-cosmology. लोकः is selected as least damaging, but translators must understand this is a compromise, not a discovery of a clean equivalent.
2. “Antichrist” as a specific, exclusive, singular false-Christ figure (v.7) — Sanskrit has rich vocabulary for cosmic adversaries within a pluralistic mythological frame (asuras contesting devas, rākṣasas, etc.) but no ready-made category for a false claimant to a position (Christ’s) that this letter insists has exactly one legitimate holder. ख्रीष्टविरोधी is a compound coinage rather than an inherited term, precisely because no inherited term fits; this is flagged as a coinage decision, not a retrieval from existing vocabulary.

2.3 Genuinely low-risk / uncrowded vocabulary

By contrast, several terms in this letter sit in genuinely uncrowded territory and require no special fencing beyond normal glossary consistency: वञ्चकः (deceiver), गृहम् (house), सन्तानाः (children), भगिनी (sister), सावधानाः भवत (watch yourselves), अतिक्रमति (go on ahead), अभिवन्दते (ordinary greeting), प्राचीनः (elder — carefully chosen to avoid गुरुः/ऋषिः, but the chosen term itself is uncrowded). These confirm that 2 John’s difficulty is concentrated, not diffuse: a handful of terms (truth, love, incarnation, teaching, greeting, world) carry nearly all of the letter’s doctrinal risk.

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Term	Decision	Rationale
यीशुः, ख्रीष्टः (Jesus, Christ)	Transliteration (fixed, REUSED from baseline)	Proper names/titles; established Serampore-tradition forms; no paraphrase possible or desirable.
अन्तीख्रीष्टः (antichrist)	Transliteration, secondary/parallel only	Retained solely for cross-reference continuity with future 1 John/Revelation curricula where “antichrist” recurs as a technical term; NOT the primary rendering (ख्रीष्टविरोधी, a paraphrase-compound, is primary) because a bare transliteration risks being heard as a proper-name rival deity-title rather than “opponent of Christ.”
अब्बा-style retained transliterations (baseline precedent)	Not applicable in 2 John	No Aramaic terms of address occur in this letter; noted for completeness only.
आमीन् (Amen), if present in liturgical use of this letter	Transliteration (per baseline standard)	Not textually present in 2 John itself, but flagged for consistency if used in accompanying liturgical material.
All other doctrinal terms (truth, love, incarnation, teaching, world, confess, greeting, reward, labor, abide, etc.)	Paraphrase/compound within existing Sanskrit lexical resources	2 John’s vocabulary, unlike a small set of untranslatable proper nouns, consists entirely of theologically ordinary nouns and verbs for which Sanskrit already has candidate terms — the task is selecting and fencing the least-damaging existing term, not inventing a transliteration. Transliteration is reserved strictly for proper names and titles already fixed by baseline precedent, per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md’s Transliteration Standards section.
ख्रीष्टविरोधी (antichrist, primary rendering)	Paraphrase-compound, not transliteration	A newly assembled compound (ख्रीष्ट + विरोधी) rather than either a transliteration or a retrieval of an existing single classical term, since no existing single term fits (see §2.2). This is the letter’s one clear case of deliberate coinage.

General rule for Phase 2: default to paraphrase/compound using existing, already-fenced baseline vocabulary wherever available (e.g., reusing सत्यम्, प्रेम, देहधारणम्, सर्वेश्वरः, पिता, परमेश्वरस्य पुत्रः, अनुग्रहः, शान्तिः exactly as fixed); reserve transliteration strictly for proper names/titles per the baseline standard; treat new coinage (as with ख्रीष्टविरोधी) as an exceptional, explicitly justified last resort only when no inherited term and no established baseline compound covers the concept.

---

4. Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality to 2 John × depth of classical-system collision × frequency/positional prominence in the core passage 1:4–11):

1. v.7 — “coming in the flesh” (Incarnation) vs. Bhagavad Gītā 4.7–8 avatāra doctrine. The single highest-risk ambiguity in the letter: this is the doctrinal center of the core passage, uses the baseline’s own designated Critical term (देहधारणम्), and sits beside the letter’s explicit denial-and-antichrist language, meaning any softening here does not just create confusion but directly enables the very heresy (Docetism-adjacent denial of real incarnation) the verse is written to name and condemn. Mandatory Gītā 4.7–8 contrast note at every occurrence, no exceptions.

2. v.7 — “antichrist” read within a pluralistic mythological frame. Risk that a reader trained in Puranic deva/asura contest-narratives, or in the daśāvatāra sequence’s still-awaited Kalki, hears antichrist as one contestant among several for a legitimately contestable position, rather than a false claimant to a position this letter insists has exactly one true holder. Compounded by the messianic-promise Critical risk already flagged in the baseline (messianic_promise doctrine entry’s Kalki-parallel warning applies with equal force here).

3. v.1/v.4 — “truth” read through jñāna-mārga Self-knowledge soteriology. सत्यम् directly predicates Brahman in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1; paired with “walking in” and “knowing” the truth across vv.1–4, the risk is a reader assimilating the whole opening of the letter to an Advaitic liberating-knowledge framework in which “truth” is discovered as one’s own Self rather than received as revealed fact about a historical, incarnate, particular Christ.

4. vv.10–11 — withheld greeting (χαίρειν) read as a breach of dharmaśāstra hospitality/etiquette hierarchy rather than deliberate doctrinal discernment. High practical risk because this is the letter’s most behaviorally concrete instruction (what to actually do when a false teacher arrives) — an etiquette-collision misreading would not just cause abstract theological confusion but could produce the opposite of the intended practical behavior, with a scholarly Sanskrit-trained reader potentially concluding the counsel is socially inappropriate and therefore quietly hesitating to apply the letter’s actual guidance. Compounded by आतिथ्यम्’s near-sacred guest-duty weight (atithi devo bhava), which is exactly the norm this passage overrides.

5. v.4/v.6 — “love” (प्रेम) read as cultivated Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava prema-bhakti attainment rather than commanded, given, relational character. Risk is elevated specifically because vv.5–6 frame love as command and obedience, a structure that could be assimilated to bhakti’s own disciplined cultivation-toward-rasa framework rather than kept as a character already given and now required, not achieved.

6. v.9 — “teaching of Christ” (उपदेशः) read as evolving guru-personal instruction rather than fixed apostolic doctrine. Risk that “abiding in” and “going beyond” the teaching are read through a guru-śiṣya-paramparā lens in which a disciple’s relationship to a teaching legitimately develops and is personally adapted over a lineage — precisely inverting the letter’s point that going beyond this teaching is a departure, not a legitimate advancement.

7. v.7 — “the world” (लोकः) read as one cosmic plane among fourteen, diluting the moral seriousness of “deceivers have gone out into the world.” Lower rank than items 1–6 because the risk is diffusive/atmospheric rather than a direct doctrinal inversion, but still requires a contextual fixing note.

8. v.8 — “labor” and “reward” (परिश्रमः / पुरस्कारः) read through a करphala-adjacent lens if translators lapse into कर्म/फल-family vocabulary under stylistic pressure for smoother Sanskrit. Ranked lower because the correct terms are already identified and the risk is one of translator discipline/consistency rather than an inherent unavoidable collision — but flagged because “smoother classical Sanskrit” instincts could easily reintroduce कर्म-family words at the sentence level (e.g., a natural participle choice) without the translator registering the doctrinal stakes.

---

5. Full-Chapter Coverage Note

2 John’s 13 verses have each been reviewed for this analysis:

• vv.1–3 (address, election, truth, grace/mercy/peace framing): covered under Truth doctrine (§1.1) and crowded-neighborhood analysis (§2.1, कृपा/अनुग्रहः co-occurrence).
• vv.4–6 (joy at children walking in truth; the love-commandment; walking as obedience): covered under Truth/Love doctrine (§1.1); हर्षः (joy) confirmed low-crowding relative to आनन्दः, per prior glossary, no further gap identified beyond what is already fixed.
• v.7 (deceivers, denial of Christ’s coming in the flesh, antichrist): covered extensively under Incarnation doctrine (§1.2) and ranked as the letter’s top two highest-risk ambiguities (§4.1–2).
• v.8 (warning to watch, labor and full reward): covered under Perseverance doctrine (§1.4); no further gap beyond कर्म/फल-family fencing.
• v.9 (going beyond vs. abiding in the teaching; having/not having the Father and Son): covered under Perseverance doctrine (§1.4) and Deity/Sonship (reused baseline Critical terms, no new gap — सर्वेश्वरः/पिता/परमेश्वरस्य पुत्रः apply exactly as fixed).
• vv.10–11 (withholding house-reception and greeting; sharing in evil works): covered under Hospitality doctrine (§1.3), ranked fourth-highest ambiguity (§4.4).
• vv.12–13 (personal closing, hope to visit, greetings from the sister’s children): reviewed — no new doctrinal terms beyond the already-fixed hर्षः (joy, recurring) and अभिवन्दते (ordinary greeting); confirmed low-risk, no gap requiring fencing beyond what §1 and prior glossary already establish.

No verse in 2 John was found to contribute doctrinal vocabulary outside the four assigned curriculum doctrines; the letter’s compact scope means its entire linguistic-risk surface is captured within §1–4 above.

---

6. Summary Recommendations for Phase 2

1. Treat सत्यम्, प्रेम, देहधारणम्, ख्रीष्टविरोधी, अभिवादनम्, and उपदेशः as the six terms requiring a mandatory inline or footnoted redefinition gloss at every occurrence in Phase 2 output — these are the load-bearing crowded-neighborhood terms identified above.
2. Hard-forbid कर्म/फल-family substitutions anywhere near “labor” or “reward” in v.8, extending the baseline’s कर्मफलम् prohibition explicitly into this letter’s translation memory entries.
3. Hard-forbid आतिथ्यम्/अतिथिसत्कारः as substitutes for “receive into house” (vv.10–11); this exclusion should be added to translation_memory.json’s forbidden-substitution conventions for this curriculum, parallel to the baseline’s अवतारः/मोक्षः-style prohibitions.
4. Confirm ख्रीष्टविरोधी (not अन्तीख्रीष्टः) as primary rendering for “antichrist,” with the transliteration retained only as a secondary cross-reference gloss.
5. Carry forward all baseline REUSED Critical terms (यीशुः, ख्रीष्टः, सर्वेश्वरः, पिता, परमेश्वरस्य पुत्रः, देहधारणम्, अनुग्रहः, शान्तिः) into this curriculum’s translation memory without modification, per the baseline’s non-negotiable enforcement rule.