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 | 23 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 7 | Native speaker review | Apostleship, Prayer and Intercession, Spiritual Gifts, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism |
| Low | 3 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do, and why this cluster has two distinct shapes
Unlike the Hindu-context languages in this pipeline, where all seven Critical-risk doctrines share one property (a fluent word smuggling in a contradictory meaning), Urdu’s Critical cluster splits into two genuinely different risk shapes:
- Direct negation risk (Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Messianic Promise, and the crucifixion/atonement content underlying Salvation): a specific, named Qur’anic verse explicitly denies or reinterprets the doctrine. No word choice resolves this; only clear statement plus explicit pastoral framing does.
- Shared-term risk (Salvation’s نجات, and the closely related Holy Spirit doctrine’s روح القدس): the same word is used in both scripture traditions for a different underlying doctrine. No substitute word exists that readers would recognize at all; the only mitigation is consistent contrastive teaching every time the term carries doctrinal weight.
Resurrection of Christ is the interesting partial exception: Islam does not deny bodily resurrection as a category (qiyamat is affirmed), so its Critical-risk status here derives entirely from its dependence on the crucifixion doctrine Islam does deny, not from any direct resurrection-specific negation.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (30 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because confirming an Urdu rendering is grammatically fluent is not the same as confirming it has been paired with the explicit contrastive teaching either risk shape requires. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural and social/legal sensitivity (e.g. evangelism framing given proselytization risk) rather than direct doctrinal negation.