John 1:1 asks for more than a lexical equivalent. Should the project translate λόγος as ‘Word’ for readability, or retain ‘Logos’ so that its philosophical and theological range remains visible? What does each option allow the reader to see, and what does it conceal?
The branch ‘λόγος · untranslated’ now records the transliteration as a testable version rather than a discarded suggestion. Its history can preserve the gain in semantic openness alongside the documented cost in accessibility.
‘Logos’ keeps the interpretive density of the Greek term visible and resists deciding the question too early. Its cost is accessibility: without annotation, transliteration can merely move the difficulty from the translator to the reader.
I would keep ‘Word’ in the main reading. It is intelligible without prior explanation and preserves continuity with a long English reception history. The cost is that readers may mistake a conventional equivalent for an exhaustive definition.