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 | 2 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ |
| High | 12 | Human theologian | Faith, Grace, Salvation, Effectual Calling, Universal Human Accountability, Church as God’s People |
| Medium | 20 | Native speaker review | Divine Calling, Adoption, Sanctification, Sainthood, Providence |
| Low | 6 | Automated review only | Gospel, Apostleship, Humanity of Christ, Peace with God, Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification |
Why the risk profile differs from Hindi
Hindi’s Critical/High tier clusters around doctrines with a ready-made syncretistic word from an entirely different religious framework (Hinduism). Swedish’s High-risk tier clusters instead around word erosion: doctrines whose defining vocabulary (tro for Faith, synd for Universal Human Accountability, frälsning for Salvation) has drifted toward a dominant secular sense within Swedish itself, with no external competing religious or confessional framework required to produce the risk. This is a genuinely different mechanism from Hindi’s syncretism, French/German/Dutch’s confessional overlap, or Italian’s saint-veneration intensity, even though it produces a comparably sized High-risk tier (12 doctrines, close to Dutch’s 12 and Germany’s 10).
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (14 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because only a theologically informed reviewer will recognize that a grammatically fluent Swedish sentence using “tro” or “synd” in its default everyday sense has quietly failed to communicate the doctrine at all, rather than communicated it imperfectly. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is general clarity rather than this specific erosion pattern.