Choose review for Chinese translation by reader, source quality and intended use. Define expert checks, Chinese review and return files before quoting.
View the file review example ↓Sort by consequence, not by content type
Choose the checks a Chinese reader will need before choosing how the first draft is produced. Identify what the reader will decide or do with the document, which source version applies, and who can resolve technical questions. A fluent draft does not answer those questions.
A product page can contain a flexible headline, fixed specifications and care instructions. A manual may mix background text with settings and warnings. Treating either file as a single low- or high-risk category can hide passages that need different review.
From reading to a project
Choose Chinese review depth from the intended use
Chinese-use and review decision · made-up card
- Content and readers
- DEMO-PRODUCT-COPY / Chinese customer-facing content; owner to confirm use
- Consequence to examine
- Product facts / claims / instructions / publication context — do not assume low risk
- Scope to agree
- Source clarification / expert review / Chinese language review / any separate QA report
- Decision owner
- Named product or content owner confirms the review brief before work starts
Review status: questions to confirm
Use → consequence
Identify who will rely on the Chinese content and which errors could matter for that use.
Consequence → review plan
Define required expertise and review coverage instead of selecting a workflow from the document label alone.
Scope → quotation
Record the agreed review, any requested report and return set; do not infer them from a service-tier name.
Related published experience
DecathlonFrench → Chinese
French-to-Chinese translation of website product content for the China market.
The Decathlon record supports French-to-Chinese website product-content translation for the China market. It does not establish an AI workflow, this decision card or a risk classification for the customer’s files.
Identify the actual source language, Chinese readers and publication or internal-use context. Mark product facts, instructions and other high-consequence content; identify the decision owner, approved references, proposed review depth, return files and deadline. Discuss any specific processing requirements before work.
Separate drafting, bilingual checking and Chinese review
An AI-assisted draft is an intermediate file. Source-to-Chinese checking compares meaning, omissions, figures and references. Chinese-language review examines wording, readability and consistency for the intended reader. A subject specialist may also need to resolve technical meaning. Agree which checks cover which material and who performs them.
Do not infer a second reviewer, full-file assessment or a written QA report from the words human translation or expert-led. List the requested review and return files in the quotation. The service scopes provide a starting point; the actual assignment still needs a file-specific brief.
Use representative passages to expose the decisions
For a fictional product-page pilot, select a description, a specification and a care instruction rather than three easy marketing sentences. Supply the page context, approved names and any uncertain source wording. The comparison should show whether the proposed work covers the questions that matter for the Chinese version.
Review source meaning, unchanged identifiers and product claims separately from preferred style. If a reviewer proposes a different Chinese expression, record whether it corrects an error, follows an approved term or offers an optional preference. An unresolved source question should remain visible in the handback.
Decathlon’s published case concerns French-to-Chinese website product content. It provides relevant document experience; it does not show how AI was used, how the client classified risk or whether the fictional pilot described here was performed.
Request a quotation for the checks, not only the word count
Send a non-sensitive file inventory or representative sample with the actual source language, Chinese script, intended readers and use. Mark any passages requiring specialist input, identify the person who can answer source questions, and describe the return format and deadline.
If your organization restricts AI use, processing channels or file retention, state those requirements when scoping the assignment so that suitable arrangements can be confirmed. A model name does not establish the processing terms for a particular project. The supplier evaluation worksheet helps record outstanding evidence questions without creating another checklist.
Compare quotations against the same review brief. A lower drafting cost may leave other work unchanged; a higher service label does not identify every included check. Confirm what will be reviewed, what will be returned and which decisions remain with your team.