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
| 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 | Sanskrit-philosophically-literate scholar 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, and why that clustering looks different here
In every vernacular Language Package in this pipeline, Critical-risk doctrines cluster around terms with a fluent, natural-sounding cultural word that quietly imports the wrong meaning. In Sanskrit, the clustering has the same shape but a different, more exacting cause: each Critical doctrine collides with a named doctrine in a named text rather than a diffuse cultural current. Incarnation collides specifically with Bhagavad Gita 4.7-8’s avatara doctrine. Holy Spirit (folded into Sanctification’s Critical-adjacent risk profile) collides specifically with the Upanishadic mahavakyas’ ātman-Brahman identity claim. This means a reviewer trained on this registry does not need to rely on general cultural fluency — they can and should be pointed to the exact verse or sutra in question.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (30 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because confirming a Sanskrit rendering is grammatically correct and even philosophically well-informed is not the same as confirming it avoids a specific doctrinal collision — and because getting that confirmation right requires theological training, not just linguistic fluency, which in any case no first-language speaker can supply for this language. Medium-risk doctrines route to review by a scholar trained in classical Sanskrit philosophical literature, a substitute role for the “native speaker review” vernacular Language Packages rely on, since Sanskrit has no living native-speaker community to consult.