Linguistic Gap Analysis

English → Ukrainian | 1 Corinthians | Language Package Extension

Purpose: This document identifies where Ukrainian’s available vocabulary genuinely lacks a clean equivalent for a 1 Corinthians doctrine or term (missing vocabulary), where a single Ukrainian word is already claimed by a crowded, competing semantic neighborhood that must be explicitly fenced off (crowded neighborhoods), which proper nouns/set phrases should be transliterated versus paraphrased, and — synthesizing both — a ranked list of this letter’s highest-risk translation ambiguities for Phase 2 prioritization. This document does not repeat the full term-by-term notes already recorded in analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json; it analyzes the structural linguistic gaps underneath those term choices, extending — and never contradicting — the baseline Romans/Galatians Language Package.

Method: For each of the ten curriculum doctrines, this analysis asks: (1) what Ukrainian vocabulary already exists that could render the doctrine’s key terms; (2) what specifically is weak, missing, or overloaded in that vocabulary given Ukraine’s three-tradition religious landscape and current wartime context; (3) what translation/exposition strategy the Phase 2 pipeline should adopt to compensate.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

Doctrine	Available Ukrainian Terms	Weaknesses / Gaps	Recommended Strategy
The Resurrection of Christ and Believers	воскресіння (resurrection); тіло (body); тілесне/природне тіло vs. духовне тіло (natural vs. spiritual body); нетлінний/нетлінність (imperishable); останній Адам (last Adam); первісток (firstfruits); перемога (victory)	(a) Ukrainian has no native lexical distinction paralleling σῶμα ψυχικόν vs. σῶμα πνευματικόν beyond a descriptive compound; a literal “душевне тіло” is a false friend (душевний = warm-hearted). (b) нетлінний/нетлінність is already a fixed devotional term for saints’ incorrupt relics (Kyiv Pechersk Lavra), a different doctrine (post-mortem bodily preservation) from Paul’s claim (post-mortem bodily transformation). (c) перемога is the single most politically loaded word in current Ukrainian public life.	Use тілесне (природне) тіло / духовне тіло as a two-word descriptive compound, never a single native root; require explicit exposition contrasting Paul’s transformation-claim with relic-incorruptibility piety at every нетлінний/нетлінність occurrence; keep перемога’s primary referent fixed to Christ’s resurrection over death in surrounding sentence structure, never left to stand alone where it could default to the war. Human theologian review for all four (per registry).
Christian Unity versus Factionalism	поділи, чвари, партії (divisions/factions/strife); розкіл (schism — RESERVED); церква / громада (church/assembly)	Ukrainian’s most natural cognate for σχίσμα, розкіл, is not merely a stronger synonym — it is the exact fixed term of the live, named OCU/UOC/UGCC jurisdictional controversy. There is no neutral Ukrainian word that means “informal partisan clique” without either sounding too weak (чвари alone can read as petty personal squabbling only) or too strong (розкіл).	Use поділи as the primary rendering for σχίσμα(τα) with чвари/суперечки for ἔρις/ἔριδες, holding both lexically apart from розкіл; require a standing exposition note on first occurrence in every chapter (1, 3, 11) stating explicitly that Paul describes personality-based cliques within one congregation, not a formal ecclesiastical break, and that this is unrelated to Ukraine’s contemporary jurisdictional situation.
The Cross as Wisdom and Power	хрест (cross); мудрість (wisdom); глупота/юродство (foolishness); сила Божа (power of God)	Ukrainian мудрість carries no built-in marker distinguishing Paul’s two competing referents (worldly cleverness vs. God’s cross-revealed wisdom) — both use the identical word. юродство is an asset (positive “holy fool” resonance, St. Basil the Blessed) but only if deliberately activated, not merely defaulted to.	Require double-framing exposition every time мудрість appears in chs. 1-3 (“людська мудрість” vs. “мудрість Божа” as fixed paired phrases, not bare мудрість). Deliberately invoke юродство’s positive Orthodox/Greek Catholic resonance in teaching material on 1:18-25 as a genuine cultural bridge, while glupota carries the neutral/negative sense for the “world calls it folly” half of the contrast.
Church Discipline and Holiness	розпуста/блуд (sexual immorality); передати сатані (hand over to Satan); Пасха наша (our Passover); тіло — храм Святого Духа (temple of the Spirit); куплені за ціну (bought with a price)	No single Ukrainian idiom captures παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ as redemptive discipline; передати сатані read cold sounds like a curse pronouncement, colliding with анафема’s adjacent Critical-risk semantic space. Пасха/Великдень naming risks conflating OT paschal typology with the contemporary de-Russified preference for Великдень as the Easter feast name.	Always pair передати сатані with an explicit stated purpose clause (“щоб дух його був спасенний,” per 5:5b) in the same sentence or immediate exposition, never left standing alone; reserve Пасха strictly for the OT/typological referent (5:7) and never let it substitute for, or be substituted by, Великдень.
Marriage and Singleness	шлюб/одруження (marriage); діва/дівство (virgin/singleness); розлучення/розлука (divorce/separation); освячується (sanctified, marital sense)	діва/дівство’s dominant cultural association (Діва Марія; consecrated monastic vocation) risks narrowing Paul’s much broader pastoral counsel (7:25-38, addressed to a mixed group of betrothed, unmarried, and widowed) into a teaching specifically about formal consecrated virginity. освячується at 7:14 uses the identical root as the Critical-risk soteriological освячення, with no morphological signal marking the non-soteriological sense.	Explicitly state the passage’s actual addressees and scope on first occurrence of діва/дівство in ch.7 exposition. For 7:14, mandatory explicit disclaimer text accompanying every occurrence: “не означає спасіння невіруючого подружжя” (does not mean the unbelieving spouse’s salvation) — treat as an extension of the baseline’s existing освячення Critical-risk discipline, not a new category.
Christian Liberty and Idol Meat	ідольські жертви/жертовне м’ясо (idol meat); знання (knowledge); сумління (conscience); право/влада (right/liberty); демони (demons); трапеза Господня/демонів (table of the Lord/demons)	право/влада (ἐξουσία) and свобода/воля (ἐλευθερία) are near-synonyms in ordinary Ukrainian usage with no natural lexical marker distinguishing “a right that may be foregone” from “a state of freedom” — yet Paul’s ch.8-9 argument depends structurally on keeping them distinct. Ukrainian marketplace-cult background (εἰδωλόθυτα) has no living cultural referent; small contemporary Rodnovir/Рідновір’я neopagan circles offer only a faint, non-equivalent parallel.	Enforce право/влада exclusively for ἐξουσία and свобода/воля exclusively for ἐλευθερία as a fixed, non-overlapping pair across all of chs. 8-10 — treat this as equivalent in strictness to the baseline’s grace/works fencing rule. Supply explicit first-century marketplace background note at first occurrence of ідольські жертви (8:1).
The Lord’s Supper	Вечеря Господня (Lord’s Supper — fixed); чаша благословення (cup of blessing); тіло моє/кров моя (institution words); на спомин/на пам’ять (remembrance); спілкування/участь у (koinōnia, sacramental); розрізняючи тіло (discerning the body)	This is the letter’s single densest concentration of sacramental-vocabulary collision. Every available Ukrainian rendering option (чаша, причастя, тіло Христове, Євхаристія) is already a fixed liturgical term carrying full Real Presence theology in the Orthodox/Greek Catholic traditions; there is literally no neutral Ukrainian vocabulary for this doctrine — every choice is a theological signal.	Fixed rendering Вечеря Господня throughout, with mandatory exposition stating this is a deliberate Protestant-evangelical framing choice, related to but distinct from Причастя/Євхаристія — never presented as if no choice were made. чаша благословення and спілкування/участь у retained as previously specified, with mandatory theologian review at every single occurrence, no exceptions. Institution words (11:24-25) rendered verbatim with zero interpretive addition; all theological framing carried in surrounding exposition only.
Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ	духовні дари (spiritual gifts); тіло Христове (body of Christ — ecclesial); члени (members); розпізнавання духів (discerning spirits); мови/язики (tongues)	тіло Христове is the identical Ukrainian phrase used liturgically for the consecrated Eucharistic host — and 1 Corinthians itself uses σῶμα Χριστοῦ in both the sacramental sense (ch.10-11) and this ecclesial-metaphor sense (ch.12), a genuine letter-internal double meaning Ukrainian cannot disambiguate lexically. мови/язики (tongues) names a practice alive in Pentecostal/Charismatic minority congregations but wholly absent from majority-tradition liturgical life, risking a “sectarian marker” reading.	Require explicit per-occurrence disambiguation of тіло Христове (“тут — образ Церкви як тіла, а не сама Вечеря Господня” / here — the image of the Church as a body, not the Supper itself) wherever ch.12 discussion follows ch.10-11 sacramental material. Frame мови/язики per Paul’s own balanced regulation (valued, but ordered and not required, 12:29-30; 14:39), never as endorsement or dismissal of the contemporary Pentecostal/Charismatic minority practice.
Love as the Greater Way	любов (love); терпить, милосердствує etc. (active love-verbs, ch.13)	любов is a single word covering romantic, familial, patriotic, and neighbor-love alike in ordinary Ukrainian — no native lexical equivalent to the Greek’s four-word distinction (ἀγάπη/ἔρως/φιλία/στοργή) exists. Given ch.13 follows directly on ch.12’s spiritual-gifts ranking discussion, любов also risks a purely sentimental reading that undercuts Paul’s actual point (active, willed, self-giving conduct).	Render ch.13’s love-verbs (13:4-7) as active verbs of conduct, not adjectives of feeling, matching Paul’s own grammar; require an explicit definitional statement on first occurrence in ch.13 exposition distinguishing agapē from romantic/patriotic любов before the chapter’s content is engaged.
Order in Worship	голова/глава (head/headship); покривати голову (head covering); порядок (order); жінки нехай мовчать (women silent instruction)	голова/глава carries an unavoidable and currently live collision with the contemporary Ukrainian and broader-evangelical gender-role debate, intensified by wartime shifts in women’s public/military roles since 2022; there is no neutral Ukrainian headship vocabulary that sidesteps this. покривати голову intersects a still-lived, visible platok custom among many Orthodox/Greek Catholic women, unlike in fully secularized contexts.	State Paul’s specific stated argument (order and mutual honor within the relation, 11:3, 11-12) precisely, without either flattening it or letting exposition silently import a settled position on the wider contemporary gender-role debate; translate 14:34-35 accurately without softening or over-glossing in the translated text itself, confining interpretive discussion strictly to exposition. Mandatory human theologian review for both 11:3-16 and 14:34-35.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary Analysis

These are concepts where Ukrainian has no single existing lexical item adequate to the source concept — the gap must be closed by compound phrase, descriptive paraphrase, or mandatory exposition, never by a one-word substitution.

1. σῶμα ψυχικόν / σῶμα πνευματικόν (15:44) — No native Ukrainian root distinguishes “animated by mere natural/soul-life, subject to decay” from “animated by the Spirit, incorruptible.” The obvious literal candidate (душевне тіло) is not merely imperfect but actively misleading (душевний = warm-hearted, sincere — a positive character trait, nearly the opposite valence of ψυχικός here). Resolution: compound descriptive phrase тілесне (природне) тіло / духовне тіло, carried by exposition, not a single word.

2. παιδαγωγός-type custodial roles (cross-reference from Galatians) — not present in 1 Corinthians directly, but the same “no clean single-word equivalent” pattern recurs with οἰκονόμος (steward, 4:1-2): управитель/домоправитель is adequate but generic; Paul’s specific sense (entrusted specifically with God’s mysteries, i.e., accountable revelation-stewardship, not general household management) requires the qualifying genitive to be retained explicitly in translation (управитель Божих таємниць), not left as bare управитель.

3. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (2:14) / “natural man” — same missing-vocabulary problem as #1, at the anthropological rather than resurrection-body level. недуховна людина (descriptive paraphrase: “person without the Spirit”) is the necessary strategy; no single Ukrainian noun exists.

4. ἐξουσία as a foregoable right (8:9; 9:4-18) — Ukrainian право/влада conveys “right/authority” generally but has no built-in marker for “a right one is entitled to but voluntarily sets aside for love’s sake,” the specific pivot of Paul’s ch.9 argument. This must be carried by explicit exposition (“правом, яким апостол Павло свідомо не користується”) rather than assumed recoverable from the noun alone.

5. ἀναξίως / “unworthy manner” (11:27) — Ukrainian негідно is available and adequate lexically, but the surrounding conceptual gap is that ordinary religious Ukrainian usage (shaped by pre-Communion confession practice, сповідь) primes readers to hear “unworthy” as a statement about personal sinlessness-readiness, where Paul’s own argument (11:20-22) is about manner/conduct toward other believers (disregard, exclusion of the poor). This is a missing-emphasis gap requiring compensating exposition, not a missing word.

6. Paul’s singular σῶμα ψυχικόν/πνευματικόν contrast interacting with the letter’s wider σῶμα/σάρξ system — Ukrainian тіло must independently do the semantic work of σῶμα (body, always positive/neutral: temple, resurrection body, body of Christ) and, in a separate register, appear adjacent to plot’ (flesh, σάρξ, negative ethical sense) without a native grammatical marker separating the two within a single lexeme family. This is the same gap the Galatians baseline already documents but 1 Corinthians intensifies it through sheer density of positive σῶμα usage (chs. 6, 10-12, 15).

General resolution principle for missing vocabulary: wherever Ukrainian lacks a lexical item, the Phase 2 pipeline must supply a fixed compound phrase (never an ad hoc paraphrase varying by translator) plus a standing first-occurrence exposition gloss, consistent with the baseline’s established discipline for imputed_righteousness and зарахована праведність in Romans.

---

3. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

These are the inverse problem: Ukrainian words that are lexically available and correct but already occupied by a competing, well-established sense (liturgical, folk-religious, political, or secular) that risks capturing the reader’s default reading. Each requires an explicit fence — a stated rule for what the term must not be allowed to mean in this context.

Ukrainian Term	Competing Occupant of the Semantic Space	Fence Required
розкіл	Live OCU/UOC/UGCC jurisdictional schism (post-2019 tomos)	NEVER use for σχίσμα in 1:10-12, 3:3-4, 11:18; reserve exclusively for formal ecclesiastical breaks. Use поділи / чвари, партії instead.
нетлінний / нетлінність	Incorrupt-relic veneration (Kyiv Pechersk Lavra)	At every ch.15 resurrection occurrence, exposition must state explicitly this is bodily transformation into a new mode of existence, not corpse-preservation.
тіло Христове	Consecrated Eucharistic host (liturgical Real Presence language)	Disambiguate per occurrence in ch.12 (ecclesial-metaphor sense) vs. ch.10-11 (sacramental sense) — never let one reading silently absorb the other.
чаша / причастя / Євхаристія	Full sacramental theology of Real Presence (Orthodox/Greek Catholic)	чаша used only in the fixed phrase чаша благословення (10:16) with mandatory exposition; причастя and Євхаристія NEVER used as substitutes for Вечеря Господня anywhere in ch.11.
освячується / освячення	(a) свячення паски — folk ritual object-blessing; (b) обоження/theosis-adjacent transformation	At 7:14 specifically, explicit disclaimer that this is neither ritual blessing nor the spouse’s salvation — a relational/covenantal status only.
діва / дівство	Діва Марія; formal consecrated virginity/monastic vocation	State explicitly that 7:25-38 addresses a broad mixed group (“through the present distress”), not a specific teaching on monastic consecrated virginity.
голова / глава	Contemporary, highly active gender-role and church-leadership debate	Confine translated text to Paul’s stated argument (11:3, 11-12); route all wider-debate discussion to exposition, never resolved by the translation choice itself.
перемога	The ongoing war’s stated national aim (post-2022)	In 15:54-57, keep grammatical and contextual anchoring unambiguous to Christ’s resurrection victory over death — never left as a bare exclamation that could be misheard as a wartime slogan.
право / влада vs. свобода / воля	Near-synonymous overlap in ordinary usage	Enforce a strict one-to-one mapping: право/влада = ἐξουσία only; свобода/воля = ἐλευθερία only, throughout chs. 7-10.
мудрість	No competing external neighborhood, but internal self-collision (worldly vs. divine wisdom sharing one word)	Always appear in a fixed paired phrase (людська мудрість / мудрість Божа), never bare, throughout chs. 1-3.
трапеза Господня / демонів	Monastery communal refectory meal (трапезна) — positive but unrelated resonance	Keep distinct from Вечеря Господня; trapeza’s monastic resonance may be noted as a minor teaching asset but must not blur with the fixed Lord’s Supper term.
душевна людина / душевне тіло (REJECTED renderings)	душевний = warm-hearted/sincere in modern Ukrainian	NEVER use for ψυχικός (2:14; 15:44) under any circumstance; this is a false-friend collision, not merely a crowded neighborhood — it actively inverts Paul’s meaning.

---

4. Transliteration versus Paraphrase Decisions

Term/Phrase	Decision	Rationale
Марана та (Μαρανα θά)	Transliterate, with mandatory gloss on first occurrence (“Господи наш, прийди!”)	Follows the baseline’s established Авва pattern (Aramaic term preserved untranslated in the existing Ukrainian Bible text); an acclamation, not a translatable concept, and gains devotional weight from being left in its original form.
Анафема (ἀνάθεμα)	Transliterate (already fixed by baseline from Galatians)	Established Ukrainian ecclesiastical loanword; paraphrasing (“нехай буде проклятий”) is permitted only as an explanatory gloss, never a substitute, per baseline rule — carried forward unchanged into 1 Cor 16:22.
Пасха (τὸ πάσχα, 5:7)	Transliterate/retain as loanword, narrowly scoped	Retain specifically for the OT paschal-lamb typological referent; do NOT extend to name the Easter feast itself (Великдень), avoiding the de-Russification-conscious naming collision already flagged in the glossary.
Апостол, Ізраїль, Христос/Месія, Ісус, Давид, Павло	Transliterate (all inherited baseline proper nouns/terms)	No change from Romans/Galatians baseline standard; consistency across documents is a stated pipeline requirement.
σῶμα ψυχικόν / πνευματικόν	Paraphrase (compound descriptive phrase), not transliteration or single-word coinage	No devotional or historical warrant for transliterating a Greek adjective pair; Ukrainian readers gain nothing from a loanword here, and a false-friend one-word choice actively misleads (see §2 above).
ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος	Paraphrase (недуховна людина / людина без Духа Божого)	Same reasoning as above; transliterating “психічна людина” would import a clinical/psychiatric register entirely foreign to Paul’s sense and must be explicitly avoided.
στέφανος (crown)	Native term (вінок/вінець), not transliteration	Well-established native vocabulary with a positive existing liturgical resonance (wedding-crowning rite); no gap to fill by loanword.
εἰδωλόθυτα (idol meat)	Paraphrase/descriptive compound (ідольські жертви / жертовне м’ясо)	No single native noun; the concept requires the descriptive compound plus supplied historical background, not a coinage.
κεφαλή (headship)	Native term (голова/глава), not paraphrase, despite live controversy	The live gender-role debate is a reason for careful exposition, not a reason to avoid the plain, accurate lexical rendering; paraphrasing away from голова/глава to soften the term would itself constitute an undisclosed interpretive choice, which the baseline’s discipline forbids.
παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ	Native compound (передати сатані), not transliteration	Fully expressible in native Ukrainian; the risk is conceptual (collision with анафема) rather than lexical, so paraphrase/compound plus mandatory purpose-clause pairing is the correct strategy, not a loanword.

General rule applied: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper nouns with an established Ohienko form, (b) untranslatable liturgical acclamations already preserved untranslated in the existing Ukrainian Bible text (Авва, Марана та, Алілуя, Амінь), and (c) a small set of loanwords already fully naturalized in Ukrainian religious vocabulary (апостол, анафема). All other gaps are closed by native-language paraphrase or fixed descriptive compound, never by coining a new loanword, consistent with the baseline’s conservative transliteration policy.

---

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal stakes, (b) likelihood of default misreading given Ukraine’s specific religious/political landscape, and (c) breadth of passage-coverage affected. All items ranked Critical/High require mandatory human theologian review per doctrine_risk_registry.json routing conventions.

1. σῶμα Χριστοῦ — sacramental (10:16, 11:24) vs. ecclesial (12:12-27) — the letter’s own internal double meaning of “body of Christ,” compounded by тіло Христове’s identical liturgical Eucharistic association. Highest risk because it is not merely a translation choice but a letter-structural feature requiring per-occurrence disambiguation across three chapters.

2. The Lord’s Supper naming cluster (Вечеря Господня / чаша благословення / спілкування-причастя / institution words / anamnēsis) — five separate Critical-risk terms concentrated in chs. 10-11, each independently capable of silently resolving a live, contested sacramental-theology question (memorial vs. Real Presence) by lexical choice alone.

3. σῶμα ψυχικόν / πνευματικόν and the false-friend душевне тіло trap (15:44) — sits at the exact center of the core passage’s doctrine (resurrection), and a single mistranslation here inverts Paul’s meaning rather than merely weakening it.

4. νετлінний/нетлінність colliding with relic-incorruptibility piety (15:42, 50, 53-54) — highest risk of unintended positive resonance leading the reader to the wrong doctrine entirely (bodily preservation instead of bodily transformation), rather than mere confusion.

5. розкіл-adjacent risk in the divisions/factions vocabulary (1:10-12; 3:3-4; 11:18) — a live, named, currently reported-on national controversy (OCU/UOC/UGCC) sitting one word away from Paul’s local pastoral concern; the risk is political-collision, not doctrinal ambiguity per se, but its currency in Ukrainian news media makes accidental invocation highly plausible if fencing is not enforced.

6. κεφαλή/headship and the women-silent instruction (11:3-16; 14:34-35) — two passages intersecting the single most actively, currently contested social-doctrinal question across all Ukrainian Christian traditions, intensified by wartime shifts in women’s public roles; risk is compounded because both the translated text and its surrounding exposition must independently avoid pre-resolving the debate.

7. ἐξουσία (право/влада) vs. ἐλευθερία (свобода/воля) — the foregoable-right vs. state-of-freedom distinction (chs. 8-9) — a purely structural Ukrainian-language gap (near-synonymy where Greek has two distinct concepts) that could silently undo Paul’s chapter-length rhetorical argument if the two Ukrainian word-families are not kept in strict, disciplined non-overlap.

8. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (2:14) — same false-friend risk pattern as item 3, at lower doctrinal stakes (individual anthropology rather than the resurrection doctrine itself) but earlier in the letter and therefore capable of priming a wrong reading before ch.15 is even reached.

9. παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ vs. ἀνάθεμα (5:5 vs. 16:22) — risk of readers conflating two structurally different pronouncements (redemptive discipline aimed at ultimate salvation vs. Paul’s apostolic curse-warning on gospel infidelity) given their superficially similar “handed over/accursed” register in Ukrainian.

10. освячύєτaι — the non-soteriological marital sanctification use (7:14) — highest risk of quiet doctrinal error via silent extension (implying the unbelieving spouse’s salvation) rather than confusion, since the term looks identical to the Critical-risk soteriological освячення used throughout the rest of the letter.

11. περεμога anchoring in the resurrection-victory declaration (15:54-57) — risk of the reader’s attention being captured by the word’s overwhelming contemporary wartime resonance rather than its intended referent, at the letter’s rhetorical climax.

12. διάκρισις πνευμάτων and bare πνεῦμα density in chs. 2, 12, 14 — cumulative risk from sheer occurrence-count of bare Дух requiring capitalization/glossing discipline; any single lapse into lowercase дух risks a “team spirit/morale” misreading given wartime idiom (бойовий дух).

13. γλῶσσα(ι) / tongues (12:10-14:40) — risk of the practice being read as marking a specific minority “sectarian” subculture rather than a NT-attested gift Paul himself regulates rather than rejects; affects the tone of the entire chapter, not a single verse.

14. διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα (11:29) — dual-referent ambiguity (Christ’s sacramental body vs. fellow believers as the church-body) that is arguably present in the Greek itself, not merely a translation artifact, and therefore cannot be resolved by lexical choice alone — both readings must be presented.

15. παρθένος’s Marian/monastic-vocation gravitational pull (7:25-38) — risk of narrowing Paul’s broad pastoral counsel into a much narrower teaching than the text itself supports, given діва/дівство’s strong existing cultural association.

---

6. Summary and Handoff

This letter’s dominant linguistic-gap risk pattern is distinct from — though it extends — the Romans/Galatians baseline’s dominant pattern (three-tradition grace/soteriology variance plus wartime political vocabulary). 1 Corinthians adds a third, distinctive risk mechanism: sacramental-vocabulary collision, where the same Ukrainian lexical items simultaneously name Paul’s argument and a fully developed, actively practiced liturgical object or rite in the Orthodox and Greek Catholic traditions (чаша, причастя, тіло Христове, таємниця, нетлінність). This mechanism concentrates most heavily around the Lord’s Supper (ch.10-11) and the Resurrection (ch.15), and secondarily touches Spiritual Gifts/Body of Christ (ch.12) through the shared σῶμα Χριστοῦ phrase.

A second, structurally distinct risk — genuine missing vocabulary rather than crowded neighborhoods — clusters around the letter’s anthropological vocabulary (ψυχικός in both its ch.2 and ch.15 occurrences), where the literal Ukrainian cognate is not merely weak but a false friend that inverts Paul’s sense.

All items in §5 above are recommended for Critical or High risk-tier assignment in the forthcoming doctrine_risk_registry.json update, with mandatory human theologian review routing for items 1-11 and native-speaker review for items 12-15, consistent with the baseline’s existing review-routing framework.

This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json. All findings here should be cross-referenced against analysis/08_core_glossary.md (term-by-term detail) when the Phase 1 registries are next updated.