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 | 17 | Human theologian | Gospel, Apostleship, Grace, Faith, Sainthood, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 13 | Native speaker review | Fulfillment of Prophecy, Davidic Covenant, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Evangelism |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Deity of Christ and Incarnation cluster with the God-word decision
Deity of Christ carries an unusual dependency in this registry: its risk is directly tied to the God-word decision recorded in translation_memory.json. If கடவுள் is correctly used for God the Father but a translator drifts toward தேவன்-adjacent or avatar-flavored language for Christ’s deity, the doctrine collapses into exactly the henotheistic reading this Language Package worked to avoid at the Father level. Incarnation is Critical for a related but distinct reason: Tamil Vaishnavism’s dasavatara devotion is unusually intensely practiced, making அவதாரம் the single strongest substitution temptation of any term in this glossary.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (24 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Tamil is fluent without catching that it reintroduces the exact avatar or henotheistic framing this Language Package was built to avoid. Apostleship is raised above the Medium level typical elsewhere in this pipeline specifically because of the guru-collision risk and the doctrine’s regional significance given Tamil Nadu’s own apostolic-heritage claim. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit and clarity rather than doctrinal contradiction.