Compare Chinese technical translation suppliers with a ten-point evaluation worksheet, evidence prompts, a fictional example and free printable PDFs.
View the file review example ↓Printable worksheets
Download the blank worksheet (PDF, 2 pages) →
Download the illustrative example (PDF, 2 pages) →
Version 1.0 · Updated 9 October 2026. Print in A4 landscape. No login or email address is required to read or download these worksheets.
Selecting a supplier for factory software? Use the Chinese MES/SCADA localization QA checklist to discuss screen context, variables and build testing.
For files intended for a China market project, bring the Chinese documentation preparation pack to the supplier discussion so source revisions, approved names and open questions are visible.
Chinese translation vendor evaluation worksheet
For procurement teams comparing suppliers for Chinese technical documentation. Record answers and supporting evidence; unresolved items are not passes.
Use the blank worksheet during a supplier interview, then request the supporting records. The example below shows how to record unresolved items. These tools do not score vendors or guarantee translation, filing or certification outcomes.
| Question | Supplier response | Evidence or document | Owner | Open items |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Who will read the Chinese content? Confirm Simplified or Traditional Chinese, the target market and the intended use. | — | Audience and locale brief | — | — |
| 2. Are filenames, product models, source versions and the delivery list agreed? | — | Versioned source register and delivery list | — | — |
| 3. Which names, numbers, variables and codes must stay unchanged? | — | Approved do-not-translate list | — | — |
| 4. Who approves domain terms and records changes? | — | Named approver, termbase and change log | — | — |
| 5. Who performs independent review? Which content also needs product-expert checking? | — | Review roles and agreed scope | — | — |
| 6. Will MT or an LLM be used? What processing, retention and approval arrangements apply to this project? | — | Project-specific data-processing terms | — | — |
| 7. Who owns editable files, layout work, UI checks and actual-product testing? | — | Format specification and responsibility record | — | — |
| 8. How will a sample be assessed? Agree error severity, acceptance criteria and revision scope. | — | Sample review record and acceptance agreement | — | — |
| 9. How will translated text, labels and instructions stay aligned when the product changes? | — | Version links, change log and release approvals | — | — |
| 10. Which documents does the vendor prepare? Which conclusions require product or regulatory professionals? | — | Scope and responsibility statement | — | — |
Illustrative example: a pump manual
Illustrative example — a fictional pump manual project, not a customer case or a statement of Angel Translation commitments.
| Question | Supplier response | Evidence or document | Owner | Open items |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Readers and markets | Simplified Chinese for mainland-China service technicians. | Locale brief, draft v1 | Product owner | Confirm whether operators also use the manual. |
| 2. Source baseline | Pump-A manual, source v3.2; Chinese PDF and editable layout requested. | Source register, draft v1 | Document owner | Freeze the source after engineering approval. |
| 3. Protected content | Keep Pump-A, alarm codes and {pressure} unchanged. | Protected-content list | Engineering lead | Approve number and unit conventions. |
| 4. Terminology approval | Engineering lead approves Chinese terms before the production batch. | Draft bilingual glossary | Engineering lead | Resolve two competing names for the valve. |
| 5. Review responsibility | Vendor to identify the reviser; product team checks warnings and operating limits. | Proposed review plan | Vendor project lead | Obtain reviewer role and domain-experience evidence. |
| 6. AI and data handling | Not confirmed; procurement requests the proposed tools and processing terms. | Vendor response pending | Procurement lead | Approve processing and retention before sharing project files. |
| 7. Formats and testing | Vendor prepares the agreed layout; product team validates the released document. | Delivery specification | Document owner | Confirm font licensing and editable-file format. |
| 8. Sample and acceptance | Review an agreed sample against recorded terminology, number and warning checks. | Sample review record | Quality lead | Agree severity definitions and revision boundaries. |
| 9. Revision coordination | Link Chinese manual v1 to source v3.2; record affected text for the next release. | Revision register | Document owner | Confirm who approves the next release. |
| 10. Professional decisions | Vendor supplies agreed translations; product and regulatory professionals determine applicable requirements. | Scope statement | Product owner | Confirm intended use; no filing or certification outcome assumed. |
Process and accountability
1. What happens to AI output before it reaches me? 2. Who performs review, and what is their domain background? 3. What QA standard is applied, and can I see a report? 4. Who is accountable when delivered content is wrong?
The fourth question is the most revealing. Providers who have thought about it answer directly; providers who have not change the subject to their technology.
Assets and continuity
5. Do you build a terminology base from my content? 6. Do I own it, and in what format can I export it? 7. How is consistency maintained across revisions? 8. What happens to my assets if we stop working together?
These determine whether you are buying a service each time or building something. A vendor with no good answer here is one you will pay full price to indefinitely.
Security and fit
9. Does your NDA cover individual linguists and reviewers? 10. Is my content used for model training, and where is it retained? 11. Which of my content types would you route to a lower tier, and why? 12. Show me your process applied to a sample of my actual documents.
Question 11 is a good-faith test. A provider willing to tell you where you do not need their most expensive service is one whose recommendations you can weigh. Question 12 replaces the entire discussion with evidence.
From reading to a project
Turn supplier answers into a project brief
Supplier evidence follow-up · made-up snapshot
- Document set
- EN-DEMO-02 · product manual into Chinese; owner to confirm scope
- Evidence requested
- A relevant project record and a proposed review / return-file scope
- Decision still open
- Pending evidence — not approved; evaluation owner records the next question
Review status: questions to confirm
Use the existing worksheet
Record the response, supporting evidence and unresolved items together.
Compare relevant experience
Look at the document types and language directions in a published project.
Define your own scope
Specify intended use, review responsibilities, deliverables and the required date.
Related published experience
HF TireTech GroupEnglish → Chinese / Thai / Malay / Hindi
Tire-technology files, product manuals and technical standards translated from English into Chinese, Thai, Malay and Hindi.
HF TireTech records English tire-technology files, product manuals and technical standards translated into Chinese and other languages in 2015–2018. This is relevant document experience, not evidence that HF used the fictional supplier evaluation shown here.
Identify your actual document types and language direction, intended readers or market, and the supplier decision you need to make. List outstanding evidence questions, evaluation owner, review and return-file requirements, and deadline. Use the existing worksheet rather than rewriting the full checklist.