Prepare a bilingual document for side-by-side translation review

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Authorized source copy

   Owner

   Document owner

   Minimum scope

   One short non-sensitive document with permission to translate its content.

   Quality check

   Identify its version, reading order and any content that cannot be extracted reliably.

2. Name

   Language and terminology choices

   Owner

   Document owner and reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Required variety, approved names/terms and a decision on numbers and units.

   Quality check

   Keep brand names, identifiers and code distinct from ordinary prose.

3. Name

   Review requirements

   Owner

   Bilingual reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Expected units, acceptable layout and unresolved-term policy.

   Quality check

   Require review of all consequential numbers, negations and obligations even in a routine document.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Build from a copy, keep stable unit identifiers and retain the untranslated source.

2. Use a supported document viewer for the editable file and independently inspect the rendered reading copy.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: available extraction/rendering tools, font availability, mixed-direction behavior across viewers and translation accuracy.

External actions requiring approval

1. Sending confidential source content to a provider, uploading files, changing a shared original or distributing the translation.

Why use this

1. When text is translated into a separate document, a missing paragraph can go unnoticed because both files still read fluently. Mixed-direction text adds another risk: an identifier can look right while its punctuation or order is confusing.

2. An adjacent review copy helps a competent reviewer locate each source unit and check meaning. It should preserve uncertain terms and graphical limitations rather than hide them behind a polished layout.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Preserve meaningful document units while drafting a translation and identifying terms that require a human language decision.

Simpler alternative

Use a trusted translator's existing bilingual review workflow or a two-column template for a short plain-text passage.

Unsuitable when

A certified translation is required, the document creates legal or medical consequences, or no qualified reviewer can verify critical meaning.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

A side-by-side review draft with numbered content units, a completeness checklist and visible unresolved translation notes.

Critical checks

1. Every intended source unit appears exactly once with its counterpart or an explicit untranslated status.

2. Numbers, dates, names, units and negation remain semantically equivalent under human review.

3. Long units, tables and mixed-direction identifiers do not become clipped, misplaced or visually ambiguous.

4. Graphics are traceable to their originals and any untranslated embedded text is disclosed; visual consistency is not claimed as linguistic accuracy.

Missing output evidence

No source extraction, bilingual review, generated document or visual QA was performed.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

An original one-page museum handout contains a short list, a two-row schedule, a mixed Latin identifier, a negated instruction and a graphic whose words are baked into pixels.

Acceptance checks

1. The unit checklist finds no missing or repeated rows.

2. A bilingual reviewer checks the negation and identifier; the graphic's text remains explicitly outside completed translation.

3. Both editable and reading copies keep correspondence visible without clipping.

Stop conditions

1. Meaning cannot be verified, source permission is unclear or the request requires certification.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   The translation reads fluently but a source unit is absent.

   Why it matters

   Surface readability can hide substantive omission.

   Proposed response

   Reconcile unit identifiers and restore or explicitly mark the missing material before review.

2. Signal

   A long translation pushes its counterpart to another page.

   Why it matters

   The comparison purpose fails even if both texts are present.

   Proposed response

   Split at a meaningful shared boundary and recheck both files without shortening away meaning.

3. Signal

   A graphic contains important untranslated wording.

   Why it matters

   The reader could mistake an incomplete treatment for a complete translation.

   Proposed response

   Label the limitation and seek an authorized transcription or specialist review rather than guess.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Choose a manageable section, verify source rights and agree terminology.

Ongoing review

1. Reconcile changed source units and repeat language/layout review after revisions.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: extraction cleanup, bilingual reviewer effort, model cost and final file size.

Limits

1. This is a comparison aid, not a certified translation. Supporting a particular language/layout recipe does not establish universal document or language support.