Logical convertibility between these text standards (based on the text itself only, without using any dictionary data or human help):
GC-RZ-P GC-RZ-D GC-RZ-A GC-RZ-S GC-NT-P GC-NT-D GC-NT-A GC-NT-S
* GC-RZ-P can be logically converted to: YES <<- YES YES YES <<- YES
- GC-RZ-D can be logically converted to: ->> ->> YES ->> YES <<- YES
- GC-RZ-A can be logically converted to: ->> ->> YES ->> --> YES YES
- GC-RZ-S can be logically converted to: --- --- --- ->> --> ->> YES
* GC-NT-P can be logically converted to: YES YES <<- YES YES <<- YES
- GC-NT-D can be logically converted to: ->> YES <<- YES ->> ->> YES
- GC-NT-A can be logically converted to: ->> ->> YES YES ->> --> YES
- GC-NT-S can be logically converted to: ->> ->> ->> YES --- --- ---
A dash --- or arrows ->> and <<- are used in this diagram, if the conversion between two text styles is not supported, because the source text
does not contain enough information for logically concluding the correct ortography in the target text style (in all possible scenarios).
If such an unsupported conversion is requested, the default option is not to convert the source text at all. However, if it is deemed
preferable to convert the text into the closest possible text style (most notably, when the script should change from native to romanized,
or vice versa), the arrows point towards the text style that is the recommendable substitute for the unsupported conversion. A dash
--- is used in the diagram, when no other logically supported substitutes are available (in the same script) than the source text style itself.
Foreign proper nouns cannot be automatically converted between a literal format (replicated letter by letter) and a transliteration
based on pronunciation. Such a conversion would be reliably possible only if both the literal and the pronounced form of the name
are documented in the source text, using some kind of tags or footnotes. This table of logical convertibility between the text styles
ignores this aspect of foreign proper nouns, and promises convertibility from a text style to another, if no other logical obstacles
exist for the conversion than the writing of foreign proper nouns being based on different principles.
The sample texts afore use such a notation that the form based on pronunciation is given in [{curly brackets inside square brackets}],
and the literal form is given in {[square brackets inside curly brackets]}, after the spelling that is chosen for the main text. Thus
it would be possible to automatically recognize, which of the two formats is the literal one. These codes and alternative spellings
are not intended to be seen by the human reader in the main text.
These text styles use a strict logical correlation between latin letters and greek script letters, so that the text can be
converted back and forth between greek script and latin script, and the text should stay exactly similar through all these
conversions, without any changes caused by the conversion process back and forth. However, foreign proper nouns are not always
fully compatible with this system. In some scenarios it is possible that converting a foreign proper noun from latin script to greek
script, and then back into latin script, produces a different spelling in latin script than was the original form of the name.
This can happen because these romanized greek text styles are optimized for fluent reading and strict logical compatibility with
the greek script, not strict compatibility with the way how other languages use the latin script.
Traditional accent marks are not used in the grammatically more ambitious text formats, which assume it to be more interesting
and beneficial for the reader, if the unusual secondary meanings of words and pronunciation of ambiguous letters are indicated
with diacritics. Adding diacritical marks for such purposes causes the need to reduce other visual noise from the text -- such as
the traditional accent marks.