Debates about translation quality usually run on the target text. Yet what sets the upper limit of the output is, most of the time, the input itself.
Ambiguity is carried over, not resolved
A sentence in the source text that has two meanings forces the translation to choose one. The moment the choice is made, the ambiguity is hidden, but it does not go away.
Translation is a reading test
The first person who has to read the text line by line is the translator. Inconsistencies that nobody inside the organisation has noticed for years come to light in this reading.
The findings should be given back to the source
If an ambiguity that has been noticed is resolved only in the translation, the source text goes on circulating with the same fault. Feedback improves the original text as well.
In multilingual jobs the effect multiplies
A single ambiguity in the source leads to a separate interpretation in each language and produces inconsistency between the languages. When the correction is made in the source, it spreads to all the languages at once.
Copy-and-paste texts are the most problematic
In texts assembled from different documents, differences of style and terminology build up. Translation does not correct these differences; most of the time it makes them more visible.
Missing context is the most frequent defect
Internal texts do not write down the things that the organisation knows. For someone reading from the outside, the missing information is simply not in the text.
Counter-view: correcting the source text is out of scope
A translation service has no obligation to improve the source text; in terms of scope this objection is correct. Yet not reporting an ambiguity that has been noticed is also a choice, and its result falls directly on the client.
Reporting and correcting are separate
The translator does not change the source text; the translator lists the ambiguity seen. The decision to correct belongs to the owner of the text. When this distinction is kept, the contribution does not strain the scope.
Last-minute texts are the risky ones
Texts written in a hurry and not reviewed inside the organisation carry the most ambiguity. In this way a tight schedule produces a cost twice over.
A writing guide benefits both sides
If the organisation has its own writing rules, the source texts are consistent and translation decisions become easier. This investment is made not in a single language but in all communication.
The source should be taken into account in measurement too
If quality measurement looks only at the target text, the problems that arise from a poor source are charged to the translator. This produces an improvement effort in the wrong place.
A text written for translation is different
A text written in the knowledge that it will be translated carries shorter sentences, fewer idioms and clearer references. This is not impoverishing the language; it is reducing ambiguity at the source, and the result is better in every language.
Takeaway
The quality expected of a translation is as much as the source text allows. The translator listing the ambiguities seen, the organisation correcting them at the source and the measurement taking the source into account as well: these raise that ceiling. Every intervention made in the target text, on the other hand, works only beneath that ceiling.