Read a Chinese translation QA report by source evidence, coverage and agreed criteria. Separate confirmed errors, questions and preferences before approval.
View the file review example ↓The problem with "quality"
A useful Chinese translation QA report shows what was checked, where the issue occurs, the supporting evidence and the decision still required. A score without that information cannot tell your team which file to correct or whether the agreed review covered the whole assignment.
A bilingual reviewer needs matching source and Chinese revisions. A Chinese-language reader can flag awkward wording, but deciding whether a passage changes the source meaning requires the source and its context. Record who can resolve a technical ambiguity instead of treating every reviewer comment as a confirmed error.
LISA QA 3.1 is a translation quality-assessment model, not an ISO certificate or proof of regulatory acceptance. Agree categories, severity weights, sampling, scoring and acceptance thresholds before using a report to approve delivery. Do not equate its weighted score with a GB/T composite error rate.
What gets categorised
Classify a confirmed issue using the categories and severity definitions agreed for the assignment. Useful distinctions include source meaning, approved terminology, Chinese language, style and file or markup integrity. Keep the evidence beside the classification so that another reviewer can understand it.
A proposed wording change may be a correction, an optional preference or a question about the source. Those are different findings. If the evidence is incomplete, leave the decision open rather than assigning a score merely because a comment has been entered.
The review-sheet example below records an open observation. It is deliberately not a scored client report. Use it to discuss the information a finding needs, then agree any assessment model, coverage and written report required for your project.
From reading to a project
Agree what a Chinese QA observation needs to show
One action changes in the Chinese draft · self-created
- Invented observation reference
- QA-DEMO-01 · source B / Chinese draft B1
- English source
- Attach the file before sending.
- Chinese draft to compare
- 发送前保存文件。
- Difference to examine
- Attach has become save: the requested action differs.
- Possible Chinese correction
- 发送前请附上文件。
Review status: questions to confirm
Evidence → classification
Tie each finding to the source, Chinese passage and agreed reference before confirming an error category.
Coverage → acceptance rule
Specify full-file or sampled coverage, severity definitions and the decision owner before scoring.
Correction → return record
Agree whether a written report, corrected file, change log or combination is required in the quotation.
Related published experience
SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International)English ⇄ Chinese
Corporate reporting and disclosure documentation, delivered across successive annual cycles.
SMIC’s published record establishes recurring Chinese–English corporate reporting from 2014. It does not establish use of this mock QA record, a LISA audit, a particular error score or an acceptance result.
Identify actual source language, matching source and Chinese revisions, intended readers and approved references. Define assessment coverage, categories, severity and acceptance criteria, the decision owner and the required report or correction files. Confirm reporting scope in the quotation.
Turn a comment into an actionable finding
For a fictional finding, a reviewer notices that a product identifier differs between a source caption and its Chinese counterpart. Record both locations, the two revisions and the approved identifier reference. Ask whether the source changed or the Chinese needs correction before deciding how the issue is classified.
The decision record should identify the accepted wording or action, the reason and the person responsible. If a term is changed, check where the same concept appears in the ordered file set; do not replace every matching string without checking context. The query-sheet guide covers unresolved technical questions, while the terminology guide covers approved naming decisions.
Read the coverage before reading the score
Confirm whether the report describes a sample, specified passages or the complete agreed file set. Check which source and Chinese editions were examined and whether later corrections were rechecked. A sampled result does not establish that unexamined passages have been reviewed.
Clusters of findings can guide investigation, but they do not by themselves prove the cause. Repeated terminology comments may reflect an outdated reference, a product distinction or inconsistent wording. Read the underlying observations before deciding what to change in the process.
For a quotation, identify the source and Chinese revisions, intended readers, available references and the review coverage you need. Specify whether you want corrected files, tracked changes, a findings list or a separate assessment report. Reporting and acceptance criteria should be agreed rather than inferred from a service label; the Chinese-review guide explains the related language checks.