Linguistic Gap Analysis
Linguistic Gap Analysis — 1 Thessalonians (English → Urdu)
Purpose and Method
This document performs Phase 1 Step 8 for the 1 Thessalonians curriculum: it maps where established Urdu Bible-translation vocabulary is sufficient, where it is missing (no settled term exists and one must be constructed or borrowed), and where it is crowded (a term exists but is shared with a well-developed rival semantic neighborhood — chiefly Sunni Islamic eschatology and jurisprudence — such that it requires deliberate “fencing” with clarifying notes rather than substitution). It extends, and never contradicts, the baseline Romans/Galatians Language Package. Findings here are already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json; this document supplies the underlying gap-analysis reasoning and ranks the resulting risks for Phase 2 review-routing.
Categorical note specific to this book: the Romans/Galatians baseline’s dominant risk pattern was negation (a named Qur’anic verse directly denies a Romans/Galatians claim — chiefly the crucifixion, Qur’an 4:157). 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 introduces a second, distinct risk pattern not previously documented at this depth in this pipeline: rival-narrative collision. Urdu-speaking readers, especially from a Sunni Muslim background, do not lack a concept of “Jesus returns” — they hold a well-developed, positively affirmed one (nuzūl-i-‘Īsā, nazil hone wale Isa) with specific content that is incompatible with, rather than merely absent from, Paul’s teaching. Gap analysis for this book therefore must identify not only missing/crowded words but missing/crowded narrative frames that a single correct word cannot fence on its own.
1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix
For each of the five curriculum doctrines: available Urdu terms considered, their weaknesses, and the recommended strategy (term chosen + required scaffolding). Chosen terms match 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json exactly; this section documents the reasoning behind those choices.
1.1 The Return of Christ
| Candidate Urdu term | Literal sense | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| رجوعِ ثانی (rujū’-e-sānī) | “second return” | Obscure, seminary-only register; unrecognizable to ordinary readers; fails the reading-level target (Class 8-10). |
| دوبارہ آنا (dobārah ānā) | “coming again” | Grammatically correct but theologically flat; carries no royal-arrival (parousia) connotation and could describe any return visit. |
| نزول (nuzūl) | “descent” | Rejected as primary term: نزولِ عیسیٰ is the specific, fixed Islamic technical phrase for Isa’s hadith-based eschatological descent (subordinate to the Mahdi, breaking crosses, correcting his own worship). Using نزول would import that entire narrative wholesale rather than naming Paul’s doctrine. |
| خداوند کی آمد (khudāvand kī āmad) | “the Lord’s coming/arrival” | Selected. آمد carries the same royal-arrival, ceremonial-welcome resonance the Greek παρουσία carries (reinforced by pairing with استقبال, “formal reception,” at 4:17). Built on the baseline’s already-established خداوند, so it inherits that term’s exclusive-Lordship weight rather than introducing new vocabulary. |
Recommended strategy: Retain خداوند کی آمد as the fixed doctrinal phrase across every occurrence (1:10 implied; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23), and require — not merely permit — an explicit contrastive teaching note at first occurrence and at every Critical-tier use: Christ returns as exclusive divine Lord, gathering all who are “in Christ” to himself permanently, not as a subordinate prophet correcting his own identity claims and later dying naturally to await the same qiyāmat as everyone else. This is a narrative-fencing task, not a lexical one; no single word substitution solves it. Mandatory human theologian review every occurrence (already reflected in the term registry).
1.2 Resurrection of Believers
| Candidate Urdu term | Literal sense | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| پنر جنم (punar janam) | “rebirth” | Already rejected in the baseline as a Sanskrit-derived Hindu-context term inapplicable to this audience. |
| زندہ ہونا (zindah honā), unqualified | ”becoming alive” | Too weak; does not specify bodily rising from death as opposed to a merely spiritual revival or figurative “coming alive” idiom. |
| قیامت (qiyāmat), unqualified | ”resurrection/the Resurrection” | Baseline term retained, but never used bare in this book. Unqualified, a Muslim reader hears the single, universal, all-humanity Last Day event. This book requires two stacked qualifications the baseline alone does not supply (see below). |
| مسیح میں مُردے کا جی اُٹھنا (masīḥ meñ murde kā jī uṭhnā) | “the rising of the dead who are in Christ” | Selected as the required compound for 4:14, 16. Adds the book-specific “in Christ” restrictor on top of the baseline’s existing “rising from among the dead” restrictor. |
Recommended strategy: Use قیامت only inside the compound phrase مسیح میں مُردے [کا جی اُٹھنا], never bare, whenever 1 Thessalonians 4 is in view. Two qualifiers must both survive translation simultaneously: (a) this is Christ’s own prior, already-accomplished resurrection reused as the pattern (baseline qualifier), and (b) this is the resurrection of a specific redeemed group (“the dead in Christ”), not a claim about the one general resurrection of all humanity, righteous and unrighteous together, that Islamic theology places at the single Yaum al-Qiyāmah. Dropping either qualifier independently collapses the doctrine into either (a) a claim indistinguishable from ordinary qiyāmat-affirmation, or (b) an over-narrow claim that says nothing about the doctrine’s newness. Mandatory human theologian review every occurrence.
1.3 Sanctification
| Candidate Urdu term | Literal sense | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| طہارت (ṭahārat) | “ritual purity” | Rejected, per baseline: names Islamic fiqh’s ritual-ablution purity category (wudu/ghusl), a legal-ritual status, not the moral-relational holiness this letter describes. |
| پاکیزگی (pākīzagī) | “purity/cleanliness” | Available as a softer register option but risks a hygienic/aesthetic reading detached from the Spirit’s active, ongoing sanctifying work; baseline already prefers تقدیس as the noun for the process. |
| تقدیس (taqdīs) / پاک (pāk) | “sanctification” / “holy” | Baseline terms retained exactly. No lexical gap here — the terms exist and are adequate. The gap in this book is not vocabulary but density and scope: 1 Thessalonians repeats this doctrine more times per chapter than any other document yet processed in this pipeline (3:13; 4:3-4, 7-8; 5:23), and 5:23 extends it to the whole person (spirit, soul, and body) using a third term, σῶμα, that risks collapsing into the Galatians-extended baseline’s جسم (= σάρξ, “flesh,” the self-reliant sinful nature) if handled carelessly. |
Recommended strategy: Retain تقدیس/پاک exactly per baseline. Introduce the new term بدن (badan) for σῶμα at 5:23 specifically to keep it distinct from جسم, preventing 5:23’s positive, whole-person inclusion of the body in sanctification from being misread as “the physical body itself is inherently sinful and must be redeemed from its own nature” — which would contradict the verse and unintentionally echo body-negating asceticism. This is a fencing task between two already-existing Urdu words (جسم vs بدن) rather than a missing-vocabulary problem.
1.4 Hope in Grief
| Candidate Urdu term | Literal sense | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| توقع (tawaqqu’) | “expectation” | Too weak/neutral; used for mundane expectations (“I expect the bus is late”) with no religious or hope-under-affliction connotation. |
| رجاء (rajā’) | “hope” (classical/Qur’anic-adjacent register, e.g. paired with khauf, “fear,” in Islamic devotional vocabulary describing the soul’s posture toward Allah’s mercy and judgment) | Available and theologically weighty, but its most common devotional pairing (rajā’ wa khauf, hope-and-fear regarding one’s standing at judgment) imports exactly the deeds-uncertain, judgment-anxious framework this letter’s assured hope is meant to contrast with (cf. baseline’s assurance_of_salvation doctrine). Better reserved for comparative-theology material than for the base translated text. |
| امید (umeed) | “hope” | Selected, per glossary. Ordinary, low-friction, register-appropriate word — but thin: in everyday Urdu it functions as a synonym for “wish” or generic optimism (“umeed hai ke barish ho gi,” “I hope it rains”) with no inherent religious or eschatological weight. |
Recommended strategy: امید is not wrong, but it is underspecified rather than crowded — the genuine gap here is that ordinary usage carries too little content, not competing content. Every doctrinally load-bearing occurrence (1:3; 2:19; 4:13; 5:8) must therefore be anchored explicitly to its specific object in the same clause or an adjoining clause — Christ’s resurrection and return — so that امید is read as a confident, grounded expectation rather than a wish. This is the clearest case in this book of a missing-intensity gap: the word exists, the doctrinal weight does not automatically attach to it, and translation strategy must supply that weight contextually every time rather than once. 4:13’s “so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope” is the load-bearing test case: امید must read as “have nothing to hold onto regarding the dead,” not “are not optimistic.”
1.5 The Day of the Lord
| Candidate Urdu term | Literal sense | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| یوم القیامہ / قیامت کا دن | ”the Day of Resurrection” | Immediately recognizable but too broad and reassigns agency: this Islamic phrase names the one fixed universal Last Day with its own specific sequence (resurrection of all, weighing of deeds, the Bridge/Sirat, etc.); using it as the primary rendering would suggest 1 Thessalonians 5 is describing that same fixed sequence rather than Paul’s own point about sudden, unpredictable timing and deliverance already secured through Christ’s death (5:9-10). |
| یوم الدین (yaum al-dīn) | “the Day of Judgment/Reckoning” | Close synonym of the above with the same reassignment-of-content risk; also more exclusively Qur’anic-liturgical in register (recited in Surah al-Fatiha) and therefore risks sounding like a direct citation of Qur’anic text inside a Christian translated document. |
| خداوند کا دن (khudāvand kā din) | “the Lord’s day” | Selected. Built on the baseline’s established خداوند, keeping agency with Christ specifically rather than an impersonal “Last Day,” while remaining fully intelligible as “a day of the Lord’s coming and reckoning” without needing to invent new vocabulary. |
Recommended strategy: Use خداوند کا دن consistently, and teach the parallel deliberately rather than avoid it: readers will and should recognize the genuine structural overlap with Yaum al-Qiyāmah (a coming day of divine reckoning is shared ground), but three specific contents must be taught as different every time this term carries doctrinal weight: (1) suddenness/unpredictability as the passage’s main point (5:1-3), not a calculable sign-sequence; (2) a division between the surprised (“those in darkness”) and the watchful (“sons of light”), not primarily a deeds-ledger division; (3) resolution through Christ’s already-accomplished atoning death (5:9-10) rather than a deeds-weighing outcome still pending. Mandatory human theologian review every occurrence, paired with the نجات contrastive note per the baseline’s escalation rule.
2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods
2.1 Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no adequate existing Urdu term; must be built as a compound/paraphrase)
| Concept | Why no single word suffices | Constructed solution |
|---|---|---|
| Believers’ sudden corporate removal to meet Christ (ἁρπάζω, 4:17) | No neutral Urdu verb captures “suddenly, forcibly, bodily lifted/gathered” without either (a) invoking رفع, the specific Qur’anic technical term for Isa’s own past ascension-instead-of-crucifixion (4:157-158), or (b) sounding like ordinary abduction/kidnapping vocabulary. | اٹھا لیے جانا (uṭhā liye jānā), a passive-causative construction (“caused to be lifted up”) built from ordinary vocabulary, deliberately avoiding رفع. See §4 below for full ranking of this risk. |
| The royal-welcome/reception connotation of ἀπάντησις (4:17) | Urdu has words for “meeting” (ملاقات) but none that specifically carries the semi-technical sense of a delegation going out to formally escort an arriving dignitary back into the city. | استقبال (istiqbāl) — an existing word for “formal welcome/reception,” repurposed here as the closest available match; requires a clarifying note on first occurrence to draw out the royal-arrival background rather than a generic-meeting reading. |
| Death as a temporary, hope-bearing “sleep” pending a future waking (κοιμάω, 4:13-15) | مر جانا (“to die”) is available but flat; the euphemism’s entire argumentative function (why grief is not hopeless) depends on the sleep-image implying a future waking, which a bare “died” erases. | سو جانا / جو سو گئے (so jānā / jo so ga’e), retaining the sleep-image as a load-bearing euphemism, introduced with a translator’s note rather than assumed self-evident. |
| The “work of faith, labor of love, steadfastness of hope” triad as a stable, repeatable compound (1:3) | No existing fixed Urdu Bible phrase for this triad predates this curriculum (it does not occur in Romans or Galatians). | ایمان کا عمل، محبت کی مشقت، امید کا استقلال — newly fixed here and required to recur identically at its echo in 5:8, per the baseline’s cross-document consistency rule. |
2.2 Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (a term exists and is adequate, but shares its territory with a well-developed rival concept that requires active fencing, not avoidance)
| Urdu term | Doctrine | Crowding neighbor | Fencing strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| خداوند کی آمد | Return of Christ | نزولِ عیسیٰ (Isa’s hadith-based descent, subordinate to the Mahdi, correcting his own worship, later dying naturally) | Explicit contrastive teaching note at every occurrence (see §1.1); never let the shared verb “returns/comes” stand alone. |
| قیامت (even inside the compound) | Resurrection of Believers | یوم القیامہ / general bodily resurrection of all humanity at the one Last Day (affirmed, not denied, by Islamic theology — the opposite risk-shape from the Hindu-context languages in this pipeline) | Double qualification: “rising from among the dead” (baseline) + “in Christ” (book-specific), both always present; see §1.2. |
| خداوند کا دن | Day of the Lord | یوم القیامہ / یوم الدین | Teach the genuine structural overlap openly, then differentiate on three specific points (suddenness, watchfulness-division, atonement-based resolution); see §1.5. |
| غضب | Wrath | غضب (ghaḍab) as a real, named divine attribute in Islamic theology, resolved through mercy-weighed-against-deeds (mizan) at qiyāmat | Pair every occurrence with the نجات contrastive note: deliverance from غضب in this letter is secured entirely through Christ’s death (5:9-10), never a favorable deeds-balance. |
| زناکاری | Sanctification (sexual ethics) | زنا as a defined Islamic fiqh category carrying prescribed ḥudūd penalties administered by religious-legal authority | Keep register strictly moral-theological (personal Spirit-enabled holiness before God), never legal-punitive; avoid any phrasing that could be read as endorsing or invoking a human legal-penalty framework. Native speaker and theologian review recommended. |
| شہوت | Sanctification (lust/passion) | Sufi nafs-discipline ascetic tradition (the lower self, mortified through spiritual exercise) | Keep the operative model Spirit-enabled holiness (external empowerment), not self-mortification technique (internal discipline); avoid phrasing that implies achieving purity through ascetic effort. |
| اٹھا لیے جانا (already a constructed solution, but still requires fencing against its rejected alternative) | Caught up / rapture | رفع (Qur’anic technical term, Isa’s past ascension-instead-of-crucifixion) | Absolute prohibition on رفع in this context; flagged in the forbidden-substitution list below. |
| مر گیا / وفات پائی (of Christ) | Christ’s death | Qur’an 4:157’s denial that Jesus was killed or crucified (“it was made to appear so to them”) | Render as a plain, unqualified historical claim; automatic theologian review; never soften toward “seemed to die.” |
| ایمان کا عمل (work of faith) | Faith/Love/Hope triad | اعمال as the live Islamic deeds-weighed-at-judgment (mizan) term | Teach explicitly as fruit flowing from faith already given, never a meritorious deed contributing to نجات — echoes the Galatians-extension’s fruit-of-the-Spirit caution. |
| محبت | Love (agapē) | Sufi devotional love-mysticism (ishq-e-ḥaqīqī) and ordinary romantic love | Anchor every doctrinally load-bearing occurrence to its specific referent (Christian community love, God’s love for the church), not left as an unanchored abstract noun. |
| بونا/کاٹنا-adjacent proverb logic is NOT present in this book, but the sow/reap caution from the Galatians baseline is worth noting as a near miss: 1 Thess has no equivalent verse, so this crowding risk does not recur here. | — | — | Noted for completeness; no action required in this book. |
3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions
The baseline pipeline consistently prefers established Urdu Christian Bible vocabulary over both (a) coining wholly new terms and (b) borrowing specific Islamic technical terms. 1 Thessalonians adds several new decision points not previously tested in this pipeline, because several of its key terms (παρουσία, ἁρπάζω, ἀπάντησις) have no prior Urdu Bible-tradition rendering fixed by the Romans/Galatians baseline.
| Term | Transliteration option | Paraphrase/compound option chosen | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| παρουσία (Parousia) | پارسیا (transliterated loanword) | خداوند کی آمد | Paraphrase chosen. A transliterated loanword would be opaque to ordinary readers (fails the Class 8-10 reading-level target) and would forfeit the royal-arrival connotation that آمد, paired with استقبال, actually carries into the text. Unlike آمین or ہلelویاہ (retained as transliterations per the baseline because they are already established liturgical exclamations), پارسیا has no comparable prior recognition in Urdu Christian usage. |
| ἁρπάζω (harpazō) | رفع (existing Urdu/Qur’anic Arabic loanword, immediately intelligible) | اٹھا لیے جانا | Paraphrase chosen, and this is the single most important transliteration-avoidance decision in this book. رفع is intelligible precisely because it is a fixed Qur’anic technical term (4:157-158) for a different, specific claim (Isa’s past bodily ascension instead of crucifixion). Its very intelligibility is the danger: it would fuse two unrelated events in a reader’s mind rather than merely sounding foreign. See ranked risk #1 below. |
| ἀπάντησις (apantēsis) | استقبال (repurposed existing word, not a transliteration question but included here for completeness) | (retained as استقبال) | No live transliteration option was seriously considered; the choice was between a flat “meeting” (ملاقات) and the richer, ceremonial استقبال. Richer option chosen; flagged for a first-occurrence clarifying gloss rather than left to be assumed. |
| κοιμάω (koimaō, “fallen asleep”) | — (no transliteration candidate) | سو جانا | Straightforward paraphrase; risk lies in translators later “correcting” it toward the flatter مر گیا for stylistic smoothness, which must be resisted — flagged explicitly in translation memory as load-bearing. |
| Abba-style retained transliterations (baseline precedent) | — | — | No new instance in this book; noted only to confirm the baseline’s ابّا precedent does not recur here, since 1 Thessalonians does not use the Aramaic cry. |
| ἀρχάγγελος (archangelos) | فرشتہ اعظم or a transliterated form | سردار فرشتہ | Paraphrase using ordinary compounding (سردار, “chief/commander” + فرشتہ, “angel”) preferred over any form that might suggest naming a specific angel (Jibrā’īl, Mikā’īl, or Isrāfīl), since the Greek text itself is deliberately unspecific. |
General rule derived for this book: transliteration is reserved for (a) proper names already fixed by the baseline (یسوع, مسیح, پولس) and (b) established liturgical exclamations (آمین, ہلelویاہ). For new technical-doctrinal vocabulary introduced by this letter, paraphrase/compounding is strongly preferred over transliteration, and — uniquely important for this book — over borrowing an existing, intelligible Islamic technical term whose intelligibility derives from a specific, different doctrinal claim. Intelligibility is not sufficient justification for a loanword choice in this Language Package; source-narrowness is an independent, sometimes overriding requirement.
4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in This Letter
Ranked by (a) doctrinal centrality to the core passage (4:13-18) and the five curriculum doctrines, (b) severity of potential collision (negation vs. rival-narrative vs. mere thinness), and (c) whether a wrong choice is silently plausible (i.e., would not visibly “look wrong” to a reviewer skimming quickly).
-
ἁρπάζω → اٹھا لیے جانا vs. رفع (4:17). Highest risk in the book: رفع is not merely available but attractive — fluent, immediately recognizable, and metrically comfortable in a verse translator’s ear — while being the single most theologically confusable substitution possible in this entire letter. A translator working quickly, or a back-translation reviewer unfamiliar with this Language Package’s specific reasoning, could silently “correct” اٹھا لیے جانا toward رفع as a supposedly more natural word choice, unknowingly fusing Isa’s individual past ascension-instead-of-crucifixion with all living believers’ future corporate gathering to Christ. Absolute forbidden-substitution status required; mandatory theologian review every occurrence; recommend an automated lexical trigger in Phase 2 tooling that flags رفع anywhere in a 1 Thessalonians 4 segment for immediate rejection.
-
παρουσία / “the Lord’s coming” vs. nuzūl-i-‘Īsā (1:10 implied; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). This is the book’s structurally highest risk (per the categorical note in the Purpose section above) because no lexical choice alone resolves it — a reader can affirm every word of خداوند کی آمد correctly and still import an entirely different, positively-held, internally coherent eschatological narrative (subordinate prophet, corrects his own Sonship, defeats Dajjal, dies naturally, awaits the same qiyāmat as all). Ranked second rather than first only because the collision is with a rival narrative requiring sustained teaching across the whole book rather than a single substitutable word; it is arguably the harder pastoral problem but the less acute single-point translation risk.
-
ἀπέθανεν, “Christ died” (4:14; 5:10). Direct historical collision with Qur’an 4:157. Ranked third (not first) specifically because the baseline pipeline already has a mature, well-tested escalation protocol for exactly this collision from the Galatians extension (cross_crucifixion entry); the risk is real and Critical but not novel to this book, and the required handling (plain, unqualified historical statement, automatic theologian review, never softened) is already fully specified.
-
قیامت inside the “dead in Christ” compound (4:14, 16) — risk of the “in Christ” qualifier silently dropping under translation pressure. Because قیامت is a single, familiar, high-frequency word and مسیح میں مُردے کا جی اُٹھنا is a longer compound, there is real risk that a translator under length/style pressure (e.g., for a memorable pull-quote, a song lyric, or a children’s version) trims the qualifier for brevity, silently collapsing the doctrine into an unqualified universal-resurrection claim. Recommend a specific Phase 2 validation check: any segment rendering 4:14/4:16 must contain both مسیح and a رجحان (resurrection-verb) root within the same clause.
-
νεκρός/κοιμάω interplay — “fallen asleep” (4:13-15) silently flattening to “died” (مر گیا) for stylistic smoothness. Lower stakes than #1-4 individually, but high frequency risk: three occurrences in six verses, each a small, easy-to-miss edit that would erase the passage’s own hope-bearing argument structure (the whole unit exists to explain why “those who sleep” will be “woken/raised”). Recommend flagging any segment where κοιμάω’s referent is rendered with مر گیا rather than سو جانا for native-speaker review, even though the risk tier is High rather than Critical.
-
σκεῦος ambiguity (4:4) — “control one’s own body” vs. “take a wife for himself.” Ranked sixth because, unlike #1-5, this ambiguity exists already at the Greek-exegetical level (reputable English translations themselves split on this verse) rather than being introduced by Urdu; the risk is a Phase 2 process risk (an ambiguity resolved silently without the required translator’s note) rather than a doctrine-collision risk. Per the baseline’s ambiguity-handling protocol, this must be flagged with alternatives_considered recorded, not resolved silently in either direction.
-
غضب / وعدہ-adjacent “Day of the Lord” resolution (5:9-10) — risk that the نجات contrastive note is supplied once at 1:10 but not re-supplied at 5:9-10, where it does its heaviest doctrinal work. A process risk rather than a lexical one: because غضب, نجات, and مر گیا all co-occur in the same two verses, a segment-by-segment (rather than passage-aware) translation workflow could apply each term’s individual note correctly while never producing the single combined statement the passage actually requires (“God has not destined us for wrath but for salvation… through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us”). Recommend this two-verse span be treated as one indivisible review unit in Phase 2, not split across segment boundaries.
-
ہوس اور شہوت / زناکاری register drift toward fiqh-legal vocabulary (4:3-5). Ranked lower because the risk is one of tone, not doctrine-negation: a translator reaching for vivid, forceful Urdu moral vocabulary could inadvertently pull in ḥudūd-adjacent legal-penalty connotations. Native speaker review is sufficient (not mandatory theologian review), but should specifically check for register drift.
5. Summary Table: Gap Type by Doctrine
| Doctrine | Primary gap type | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| The Return of Christ | Rival-narrative collision (not lexical) | Critical |
| Resurrection of Believers | Crowded neighborhood requiring double qualification | Critical |
| Sanctification | Adequate vocabulary; density/scope + one new fencing pair (بدن vs جسم) | High |
| Hope in Grief | Missing-intensity gap (word exists, weight does not attach automatically) | High |
| The Day of the Lord | Crowded neighborhood requiring differentiated teaching | Critical |
This analysis feeds directly into 08_core_glossary.md (already produced) and must inform the update of assets/translation_memory.json and assets/bible_term_registry.json at Phase 1 Step 2 before Phase 2 segment translation of 1 Thessalonians begins. The forbidden-substitution addition most urgent to propagate into 12_ai_translation_requirements.md is رفع for ἁρπάζω (§4, rank 1), which is not yet listed in the baseline’s forbidden-substitution set and represents a genuinely new risk class this pipeline has not previously documented.