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 | 8 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Salvation, Incarnation, Grace, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise |
| High | 20 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Faith, Sanctification, Providence, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 9 | Native speaker review | Apostleship, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism, Church as God’s People, Kingdom Mission |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
Santali’s eight Critical-risk doctrines split into two distinct failure modes, similar in structure to Bodo’s but rooted in Sarnaism specifically rather than Bathouism. Incarnation, Resurrection, Sonship, Deity of Christ, and Lordship are Critical because a fluent-sounding rendering could accidentally borrow structure from bonga possession (for incarnation) or place Christ inside the existing bonga pantheon alongside Marang Buru and Sing Bonga (for Lordship, Sonship, Deity). Salvation and Grace are Critical for a different reason: they name concepts with no ready native scaffold in Sarnaism at all, so getting them wrong means leaving the concept untaught rather than mistranslating an existing one. Messianic Promise is Critical because it must not be folded into the populated bonga pantheon as one more recognized spirit-figure.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (28 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Santali is fluent without catching that it either imports possession/pantheon framing or silently skips teaching a concept that has no existing native starting point. Given this language’s thinner overall translation tradition, this Language Package additionally recommends that every segment using a provisional term be flagged for theologian review regardless of its assigned risk tier, a stricter standard than applied elsewhere in this pipeline. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit (e.g. colonial-mission associations, contemporary Adivasi identity sensitivities) rather than doctrinal contradiction or conceptual absence.