Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — Jude 1 (Full Book) | English → Telugu
Purpose
This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 for the Jude curriculum. It builds directly on 07_semantic_analysis.md, 08_core_glossary.md, and the extended bible_term_registry.json produced for this letter, and it must be read alongside the baseline Romans Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json, 12_ai_translation_requirements.md), which remains the controlling authority for every reused term. Nothing below contradicts or re-opens a baseline decision; this analysis identifies where Jude’s own distinctive vocabulary creates new gaps, collisions, and ambiguity risks that the Romans-only baseline could not have anticipated, and recommends handling strategies consistent with the baseline’s established conventions (locked denominational choices, forbidden-substitution list, forensic/relational rather than karmic/fatalistic framing, avatar-avoidance, Shakta-avoidance, etc.).
Jude is short (25 verses) but doctrinally and rhetorically dense — proportionally, it may carry a higher concentration of High/Critical-risk terms per verse than any other book in this pipeline to date, chiefly because of (a) its OT-typology chain (Israel, angels, Sodom, Cain, Balaam, Korah), (b) its non-canonical citation of Enoch, and (c) its central τηρέω (“keep”) wordplay that runs in two opposite theological directions within the same 25 verses.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the six curriculum doctrines: available Telugu vocabulary, its weaknesses/gaps, and the recommended handling strategy.
1.1 Contending for the Faith Once Delivered
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | విశ్వాసము కొరకు పోరాడుట (contend for the faith); అప్పగించబడిన (delivered/entrusted); విశ్వాసం (faith, REUSE); పరిశుద్ధులు (saints, REUSE) |
| Weaknesses | (1) పోరాడు’s everyday register carries literal combat/communal-strife connotations that could be misheard as endorsing physical or sectarian conflict — a live concern given denominational friction already present in Telugu Christian communities (Baptist/CSI/Lutheran/Catholic per the baseline’s church_as_gods_people note). (2) Telugu has no single native word for a closed, completed deposit of doctrine as distinct from an ongoing, growing tradition; అప్పగించబడిన must be reinforced with ఒక్కసారే (“once for all”) every time or the completedness claim erodes across lessons. |
| Recommended strategy | Lock విశ్వాసము కొరకు పోరాడుట as the fixed rendering for ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι at every occurrence; lesson commentary (not the translated text itself) must frame this explicitly as doctrinal perseverance and public defense, never physical or communal conflict. Always pair అప్పగించబడిన with ఒక్కసారే in surrounding explanatory material, not necessarily in the verse text itself, to protect the closed-deposit sense. Reuse విశ్వాసం unchanged, flagging in lesson notes when v.3/v.20 shift toward the “deposit of doctrine” sense versus the personal-trust sense elsewhere (vv.5, 22). |
1.2 Judgment on Ungodly False Teachers
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | భక్తిహీనులు/భక్తిహీనత (ungodly); తీర్పు / శిక్ష విధింపు (judgment/condemnation); ముందుగా నిర్ణయించబడిన (designated beforehand); యజమాని (Master, δεσπότης); ప్రభుత్వాన్ని తిరస్కరించుట (reject lordship); దూషించు (blaspheme); మహిమగల వారు (glorious ones); పాపులు (sinners, REUSE); అపహాసకులు (scoffers); విభేదములు కలిగించువారు (causing divisions) |
| Weaknesses | (1) భక్తిహీనులు is built directly on భక్తి, the very root the baseline rejected for “faith” because of its Vaishnava/Shaiva devotional resonance; negating that root risks readers hearing “less devoted/less religious in general” rather than “actively contemptuous of the one true God’s exclusive claim.” (2) ముందుగా నిర్ణయించబడిన sits one step away from the baseline’s already-flagged election/providence caution (దేవుని ఏర్పాటు, దేవుని పరిపాలన) and could drift toward విధి (fate) or కర్మ (karma) framing if translated loosely elsewhere in a lesson. (3) యజమాని and ప్రభువు occur side by side in v.4 and are easily collapsed by a translator seeking a smoother sentence, destroying Jude’s deliberate double-authority-title rhetoric. (4) మహిమగల వారు reuses మహిమ, God’s own Critical-tier glory term, for created angelic beings — a real risk of implying these beings share God’s own glory rather than being contrasted with it. |
| Recommended strategy | Always pair భక్తిహీనులు with an explicit object (దేవుని పట్ల భక్తిహీనులు) in verse text or footnote to anchor the term to specific, culpable rejection of God rather than generic irreligion. Render ముందుగా నిర్ణయించబడిన with lesson commentary that stresses these are persons culpably marked out because of their own foreseen conduct, never framed with fatalistic vocabulary. Keep యజమాని and ప్రభువు textually distinct in every translated occurrence of v.4 — do not merge into a single phrase. Require a translator’s note wherever మహిమగల వారు occurs, clarifying these are exalted created beings, distinct from God’s own మహిమ. |
1.3 Old Testament Warnings as Types (Israel, Angels, Sodom)
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | దేవదూత (angel); బంధించి ఉంచుట (kept/reserved, negative); నిత్య బంధకములు / నిత్యాగ్ని (eternal chains/fire); మాదిరి (example/type); అన్యమైన శరీరవాంఛ (unnatural desire); ప్రధానదూత (archangel); అపవాది (devil); హనోకు / ప్రవచించెను (Enoch/prophesied); established proper names (కయీను, బాలాము, కోరహు, మిఖాయేలు, మోషే, సొదొమ, గొమొఱ్ఱా, ఐగుప్తు) |
| Weaknesses | (1) దేవదూత is phonetically and conceptually adjacent to దేవత, the everyday Telugu word for a Hindu deity/demigod — in a region where multi-deity devotional vocabulary is culturally live (per the baseline’s Tirupati and Vijayawada Shakta references), there is real risk of angels being processed as a lesser class of deity rather than created servant-messengers of the one దేవుడు. (2) Jude 1:14 cites 1 Enoch as containing a true prophetic word — Telugu learners with strong denominational catechesis on the closed 66-book Protestant canon may either reject the verse’s authority or, in the opposite failure mode, conclude 1 Enoch itself is canonical Scripture. (3) అన్యమైన శరీరవాంఛ (Sodom’s sin) requires precision without either euphemistic softening or interpretive elaboration beyond the source text — a genuine tightrope in formal Telugu register. (4) The Cain/Balaam/Korah triad (v.11) has no ready-made single Telugu “typology” vocabulary; each figure’s specific sin-pattern (self-willed worship-rejection, profit-driven corruption, authority-rebellion) must be carried by context and lesson commentary rather than by the proper name alone. |
| Recommended strategy | Every occurrence of దేవదూత in learner-facing material should be accompanied, at least on first use per lesson, by a brief clarifying gloss: created, servant messengers of దేవుడు, not a class of దేవత. Human theologian review (already required per the registry) must produce a standard explanatory footnote for v.14 stating that Jude affirms the truth of this specific prophetic statement without placing 1 Enoch within the canon of Scripture, and without diminishing Jude’s own inspired authority as the citing NT author — this footnote should be reused verbatim across all lessons touching v.14-15 for consistency. Render అన్యమైన శరీరవాంఛ literally and briefly; resist any temptation toward either a softened paraphrase or an expanded moralizing gloss in the verse text itself — commentary may expand, the translated verse must not. For Cain/Balaam/Korah, rely on lesson commentary (not the base translation) to name each figure’s specific sin-pattern, since Telugu has no compact idiom capturing “type” for this triad beyond మాదిరి, which is already reserved for Sodom’s example function in v.7. |
1.4 Mercy and Rescue of the Wavering
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | కనికరం (mercy); సందేహించువారు (wavering/doubters); లాగివేయుచు (snatching); శరీరముచేత మరకపట్టిన వస్త్రము (stained garment); రక్షణ (salvation, REUSE); నిత్యజీవం (eternal life) |
| Weaknesses | (1) కనికరం and కృప (grace) both denote God’s undeserved favor and are near-synonyms in everyday Telugu usage; Jude’s own vocabulary keeps them separate across three verses (2, 21, 22-23), a distinction easily flattened by a translator reaching for either word interchangeably. (2) సందేహించువారు, if handled carelessly, could be read as describing the same group as the false teachers themselves, collapsing Jude’s important pastoral distinction between deceivers (vv.4-19) and the sympathetic, still-rescuable wavering (v.22). (3) శరీరముచేత మరకపట్టిన వస్త్రము risks being processed through regional caste/ritual-purity pollution categories (a live cultural frame) rather than as a moral-corruption metaphor. |
| Recommended strategy | Never substitute కృప for కనికరం or vice versa anywhere in this curriculum; require a translator’s note wherever both terms appear within the same lesson unit (vv.2, 21-23) explicitly naming the distinction (grace = unmerited favor considered apart from condition/need; mercy = compassion shown toward one in danger/need). Lesson framing for v.22 must explicitly identify సందేహించువారు as believers still within reach of rescue, contrasted by name with the false teachers described earlier. Gloss శరీరముచేత మరకపట్టిన వస్త్రము in commentary as moral corruption from sinful conduct, explicitly distinguished from ritual/caste purity discourse. |
1.5 Kept by God and Presented Blameless
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | కాపాడబడిన / కాపాడుట (kept, positive); తప్పిపోకుండ కాపాడుటకు (keep from stumbling); నిర్దోషులు (blameless); దేవుని ప్రేమ (love of God); మహా ఆనందముతో (great joy) |
| Weaknesses | The single greatest structural gap in this letter: Greek τηρέω carries both the positive sense (God preserving believers, vv.1, 21, 24) and the negative sense (God holding the disobedient in custody for judgment, v.6, and v.13’s reserved darkness) — the same root, deliberately reused by Jude for rhetorical effect. Telugu has no single verb root that naturally carries both senses the way τηρέω does, so the wordplay itself is inevitably lost in translation; the danger is not merely losing an artistic effect but actively misapplying one sense’s vocabulary to the other’s context, which would either soften the certainty of angelic judgment or unsettle the assurance of believer-preservation. |
| Recommended strategy | Maintain two entirely distinct, non-overlapping Telugu lexical items — కాపాడబడిన/కాపాడుట for the positive sense and బంధించి ఉంచుట for the negative sense — with mandatory human theologian confirmation of which sense is active at every single occurrence before translation is finalized (already reflected as Critical in the registry). A lesson-level translator’s note should explicitly mention to instructors that Jude’s Greek uses one shared root for both, so the doctrinal pairing (God who keeps his own is the same God who keeps the disobedient for judgment) can still be taught even though the wordplay cannot be reproduced lexically. |
1.6 Doxology and God’s Preserving Power
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Available Telugu terms | మహిమ (glory, REUSE); ఘనత (majesty); బలము / ప్రభావం (dominion); అధికారం (authority); రక్షకుడు (Savior); మహా ఆనందముతో (great joy) |
| Weaknesses | (1) Four near-synonymous power/authority terms are stacked in the closing doxology (δόξα, κράτος, ἐξουσία, and implicitly κυριότης from v.8) — Telugu risks flattening these into one or two words if translators reach for the most familiar term repeatedly. (2) బలము is a very common, low-register word (physical strength) that may feel doctrinally thin for a doxological climax addressed to the eternal God. (3) A మహాత్మ్యం-style coinage for “majesty” was considered and rejected because of its surface-form overlap with the political-historical title “Mahatma,” which would introduce an unrelated and distracting association. |
| Recommended strategy | Hold four distinct Telugu terms for the doxology’s four distinct Greek terms: మహిమ (δόξα), ఘనత (μεγαλωσύνη), బలము (κράτος), అధικారం (ἐξουσία) — and keep అధికారం distinct from ప్రభుత్వం (used for κυριότης in v.8) so the letter’s authority-vocabulary structure survives intact rather than being collapsed into a single generic “power/authority” word throughout. Confirm బలము’s register is elevated appropriately by its doxological co-text (paired with మహిమ and ఘనత) rather than attempting a synonym substitution. |
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Missing Vocabulary (no ready Telugu equivalent; requires compound/coinage)
| Gap | Issue | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Closed, once-for-all doctrinal deposit (παραδοθείσῃ) | No single Telugu word distinguishes a completed, closed transmission from an ongoing, developing tradition. | Compound అప్పగించబడిన + reinforcing ఒక్కసారే in surrounding material; never render with a word implying an evolving oral tradition. |
| Wordplay-carrying custodial verb (τηρέω, dual sense) | No Telugu verb root naturally spans both “preserve for blessing” and “hold in custody for judgment.” | Two separate lexical items (see §1.5); accept the loss of the Greek wordplay as unavoidable, and compensate pedagogically via a translator’s note rather than lexically. |
| Hebraic idiom “showing partiality for profit” (θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν, v.16) | No single Telugu idiom captures this compound flattery-for-gain concept in one phrase. | Retain the descriptive compound లాభము కొరకు ముఖస్తుతి చేయువారు already proposed in the term registry; do not attempt a shorter idiom that would lose either the flattery or the profit-motive component. |
| ”Flesh of another kind” euphemism (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, v.7) | Telugu has no equivalent biblical-register euphemism already established from prior translation tradition for this specific idiom. | Literal, non-euphemistic, non-editorializing compound (అన్యమైన శరీరవాంఛ), theologian-reviewed; resist inventing a softer or a more explicit substitute. |
| Rank-distinct angelic title “archangel” | Telugu Christian usage has దేవదూత but no independently-coined native word for the specific NT rank ἀρχάγγελος. | Compound on the established root: ప్రధానదూత (“chief/head messenger”), paralleling the Greek’s own compound structure. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (multiple existing Telugu words compete for the same conceptual space; require deliberate fencing)
| Neighborhood | Competing Telugu Terms | Fencing Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Grace vs. Mercy | కృప (grace) / కనికరం (mercy) | Lock κρις/έλεος never interchanged; require co-occurrence footnote wherever both appear in the same lesson (vv.2, 21-23 vs. v.4). |
| Angel vs. Deity | దేవదూత (angel) / దేవత (Hindu deity/demigod) | Mandatory first-use clarifying gloss per lesson: angels are created servant-messengers of the one దేవుడు, never a class of deity. |
| Soul/Spirit root collision | ఆత్మ (soul/self, root of πνεῦμα ἅγιον’s పరిశుద్ధాత్మ) vs. ψυχικοί (“worldly/soulish,” v.19) | Never render ψυχικοί with a bare ఆత్మ-based word; always use the fuller compound పరిశుద్ధాత్మ లేనివారు, paired explicitly with the following clause’s Spirit-reference, per the same logic that forbids పరమాత్మ for Holy Spirit in the baseline. |
| God’s Glory vs. Angelic Rank | మహిమ (God’s glory, Critical) / మహిమగల వారు (“glorious ones,” created angelic beings, v.8) | Mandatory bounding footnote distinguishing the referent every time మహిమగల వారు occurs; never let the phrase stand alone without that anchor in lesson material. |
| Lord vs. Master | ప్రభువు (κύριος) / యజమాని (δεσπότης) | Never merge into a single phrase in v.4; preserve both authority-titles distinctly to retain Jude’s doubled accusation. |
| Ungodly vs. Devotional-piety root | భక్తిహీనులు (ungodly, ἀσεβεῖς) built on భక్తి, the term the baseline already rejected for “faith” | Always specify the object (దేవుని పట్ల భక్తిహీనులు) rather than leaving the term absolute/generic. |
| Moral defilement vs. Ritual/caste purity | అపవిత్రం చేయుట, మరకపట్టిన వస్త్రము (moral defilement, vv.8, 23) vs. regional caste/ritual purity-pollution discourse | Explicit lesson-commentary distinction every occurrence: this is moral corruption from sin, not ceremonial/caste pollution. |
| Devil vs. Demons/folk-spirits | అపవాది (the Devil, singular cosmic adversary) vs. రాక్షసులు, దయ్యం, పిశాచి (regional demon/folk-spirit categories) | Reserve అపవాది exclusively for the singular, personal, cosmic διάβολος (v.9); never use a plural folk-spirit term for this figure. |
| Dominion/Power vs. Shakti | బలము / ప్రభావం (κράτος) vs. శక్తి (forbidden) | Absolute prohibition on శక్తి carried over unchanged from the baseline’s power-of-God caution (Kanaka Durgamma/Vijayawada Shakta tradition); applies identically here in the closing doxology. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
| Term/Category | Decision | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Proper names (Enoch, Cain, Balaam, Korah, Michael, Moses, Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Jude) | Transliterate, using established Telugu Bible forms shared across Protestant/Catholic usage (హనోకు, కయీను, బాలాము, కోరహు, మిఖాయేలు, మోషే, సొదొమ, గొమొఱ్ఱా, ఐగుప్తు, యూదా) | Consistent with baseline transliteration standards; no paraphrase needed since these are proper referents with settled forms. |
| ”Amen”-class doxological exclamations, if present in surrounding liturgical material | Transliterate (ఆమేన్) per baseline convention | Established form; no equivalent paraphrase improves clarity. |
| ψυχικοί (“worldly/soulish,” v.19) | Paraphrase into the compound పరిశుద్ధాత్మ లేనివారు rather than any single-word coinage or transliteration | A transliterated Greek loanword would be opaque to Telugu readers and would not resolve the ఆత్మ-root collision risk; a full explanatory compound is required instead. |
| δεσπότης (“Master,” v.4) | Paraphrase using existing native vocabulary (యజమాని), not transliteration | Telugu already has a serviceable native word conveying absolute ownership; transliteration would add no clarity and would break register consistency with ప్రభువు. |
| ’ “the faith” (deposit sense, vv.3, 20) | Reuse existing native term (విశ్వాసం) with disambiguating lesson commentary, not a new coinage or transliteration | Introducing a separate transliterated or coined term for “the faith-as-deposit” sense would fragment vocabulary unnecessarily; the existing baseline term can carry both senses if context is clarified pedagogically. |
| σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (“flesh of another kind,” v.7) | Paraphrase, literal and restrained (అన్యమైన శరీరవాంఛ) | No existing Telugu Bible idiom for this euphemism; a restrained literal paraphrase avoids both euphemistic loss of meaning and inappropriate explicitness. |
| ἀρχάγγελος (“archangel,” v.9) | Compound on existing root, not transliteration | ప్రధానదూత communicates the rank-distinction transparently using already-understood vocabulary (దూత/దేవదూత), unlike a transliterated loanword which would require separate explanation. |
| δόξαι (“glorious ones,” v.8) | Paraphrase with mandatory bounding note, not a new coinage | Built deliberately on the existing మహిమ root so the conceptual link to “glory” is visible, but requires an explanatory footnote at every occurrence rather than standing as an opaque technical term. |
General principle carried forward from the baseline: transliteration is reserved for proper names and a small set of settled liturgical exclamations; all theological/doctrinal vocabulary is paraphrased using existing Telugu Christian vocabulary wherever a serviceable term exists, with new compounds constructed on existing, already-doctrinally-vetted roots (e.g., దేవదూత → ప్రధానదూత) rather than invented from unrelated roots or borrowed Greek/English forms.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Jude
Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal weight × likelihood of translator/learner error), drawing on the doctrine risk registry’s Critical/High tiers as extended for this letter.
-
τηρέω’s dual sense — “kept” for preservation (vv.1, 21, 24) vs. “kept/reserved” for judgment (v.6, v.13). The single highest risk in the letter. A translator or reviewer working quickly could apply the positive-preservation Telugu term to a judgment context (softening the certainty of angelic condemnation) or, in the opposite failure, apply the negative custodial term to believers (undermining assurance of God’s preserving grace). Mitigation: mandatory theologian sign-off at every occurrence; two lexically unrelated Telugu terms, never a shared root.
-
ψυχικοί (v.19) rendered with a bare ఆత్మ-based word. Direct collision with the Critical-tier Holy Spirit term (పరిశుద్ధాత్మ) and with Vedantic ఆత్మ (monistic universal Self) — the exact category of risk the baseline already flagged as forbidden for పరమాత్మ. A careless single-word rendering here could either deny these people a human soul (a claim the Greek does not make) or accidentally import monistic-Self theology into a warning passage. Mitigation: mandatory full compound పరిశుద్ధాత్మ లేనివారు, never a bare form; theologian review required.
-
Jude 1:14’s citation of 1 Enoch as “prophesied.” Risk of either (a) learners concluding 1 Enoch belongs in the canon, or (b) learners rejecting v.14-15’s authority altogether once they learn the source is extra-biblical, undermining confidence in Jude’s own inspired text. Mitigation: standardized, reused theologian-approved footnote distinguishing “Jude’s inspired affirmation of this specific true statement” from “canonical status of the source document.”
-
δόξαι/“glorious ones” (v.8) vs. God’s own δόξα/మహిమ. Built on the same Telugu root as the Critical-tier term for God’s own glory; risk of learners hearing this as an attack on God’s own glory rather than on the honor due to created angelic beings of rank. Mitigation: mandatory bounding footnote at every occurrence.
-
προγεγραμμένοι/“designated beforehand” (v.4) drifting toward fatalism. Sits directly beside the baseline’s already-documented providence/election caution (విధి/కర్మ avoidance); a loose paraphrase in lesson commentary could make God’s judgment sound like impersonal predetermination rather than a just verdict on culpable persons. Mitigation: lesson commentary must explicitly affirm the persons’ own responsibility alongside God’s foreknowledge.
-
ἀσεβεῖς/ఆfootnoteHeaven “ungodly” (multiple verses) heard as generic irreligion rather than specific rejection of the true God. Built on the భక్తి root already flagged as theologically loaded in the baseline; without an explicit object, learners from a multi-religious extended-family context could read this as “less religiously observant” rather than “in active, culpable denial of God’s exclusive lordship.” Mitigation: always specify దేవుని పట్ల.
-
κύριος/ప్రభువు vs. δεσπότης/యజమాని collapsed into one term in v.4. Loses Jude’s deliberate doubling of authority-titles, weakening the force of the false teachers’ offense. Mitigation: enforce textual distinctness; flag any segment where a translator merges the two.
-
δεδεσμαι /“kept from stumbling” (φυλάξαι ἀπταίστους, v.24) read as human self-effort rather than divine act. The doxological climax’s entire rhetorical force depends on the keeping-power being God’s alone (“him who is able”); a passive-voice-flattening translation choice could shift emphasis toward the believer’s own perseverance. Mitigation: theologian review confirming the agent (God) remains grammatically and theologically unambiguous.
-
κρίμα/κρίσις rendered with any term evoking కర్మఫలం (karmic consequence). Andhra/Telangana’s surrounding cultural vocabulary for consequence and retribution includes karma-adjacent idiom even in everyday non-religious speech; loose paraphrase in commentary (not the locked term తీర్పు itself) is the main exposure point. Mitigation: native-speaker review of all surrounding commentary, not just the locked term.
-
χιτῶνα ἐσπιλωμένον/“stained garment” (v.23) read through caste/ritual-purity categories. Lower doctrinal stakes than items 1-9 but high likelihood of default cultural misreading given how pervasive purity/pollution discourse remains in regional social vocabulary. Mitigation: explicit moral-not-ritual framing in every lesson touching this verse.
Summary
Jude’s linguistic-gap profile differs sharply from Romans’: where Romans’ major risks clustered around a small number of load-bearing soteriological terms defended against two or three well-known competing frameworks (moksha/mukti, avatar, shakti), Jude compresses an unusually high density of internally self-referential risks — a single Greek root doing double rhetorical duty (τηρέω), a citation from outside the canon treated as true, and several near-synonym pairs (grace/mercy, angel/deity, glory/glorious-ones, lord/master) that must be held apart by fencing rather than resolved by finding a single “correct” Telugu word. The recommended strategy throughout is disciplined lexical fencing plus mandatory theologian/native-speaker footnoting, never lexical innovation for its own sake — consistent with the baseline’s own stated preference for established, century-old Telugu Christian vocabulary over novel coinage wherever an existing term can be made to work with sufficient contextual anchoring.
This analysis must be loaded alongside 08_core_glossary.md and the extended bible_term_registry.json before Phase 1 Step 9 (Doctrine Risk Registry construction) proceeds.