When an error is found in a certified document, no correction can be made on it: nothing is crossed out and no annotation is added. The document is drawn up again and the chain is run from the beginning. This rigidity makes the cost of the correction greater than the error itself.
Ban on correction
No correction can be made by hand on a certified document. Crossing out makes the document suspect. The rule is strict.
Drawing up again
When an error is found, the document is drawn up again. The new document bears a new date. The act is carried out from the beginning.
Renewing the chain
A new declaration requires a new certification. The earlier annotations are not carried over to the new document. The chain is repeated.
Collecting the old copies
The faulty copies are withdrawn from circulation. A faulty document left in circulation may be used later. The collection is carried out.
Marking the old copies
Copies that have been taken back are marked as invalid. The mark prevents confusion. The practice is simple.
Source of the error
Whether the error is in the translation or in the source document is determined. If the source is different, the solution is different too. The distinction is made.
An error in the source document
If the error is in the source document, the correction is requested from the issuing authority. Translation cannot remedy this. The route is different.
An error in the translation
If the error belongs to the translation, responsibility falls on the agency and the cost of renewal is borne by it. This stance protects the relationship. The decision is defined from the outset.
A change originating with the client
If the client changes information later, this is not an error but a change of scope. The distinction is made explicit. The cost is shared accordingly.
Putting responsibility in writing
Who bears the expense for which type of error is defined in the contract. Uncertainty produces dispute. The definition is made at the outset.
Rapid response
An error is reported as soon as it is noticed. Delay leads to the faulty document being used. The report is prompt.
An error in a document already used
If an error is found after the document has been submitted to an organisation, the organisation is informed as well. A silent correction is risky. Transparency is preferred.
Effect on time
Re-certification adds the time of all the steps again. In fixed-date procedures this may be impossible to make up for. The risk is high.
Priority handling
Renewal jobs are not put in the queue; they are handled as a priority. Delay grows. The arrangements are made accordingly.
Root cause review
Why the error occurred is examined. A record is kept so that the same error is not repeated. The review is kept short.
Questioning the review step
If the error passed through review, the review step is re-examined. The question asked is how the review missed it. The process is corrected.
Adding it to the list
The new type of error is entered in the checklist. The list grows with experience. Maintenance is continuous.
Explaining to the client
What happened and how it will be prevented are explained openly. Defensive language reduces trust. Communication is honest.
The corporate trust dimension
How an error is managed is more decisive than the error itself; prompt notification and an open correction plan usually do not damage the relationship and may even strengthen it. For this reason concealment is not chosen under any circumstances. The approach is permanent.
The costliest mistake
At this step the costliest mistake is leaving a seemingly small error uncorrected; every time the document is used the error goes back into circulation, and in the end it surfaces in a fixed-date procedure. Correction is not postponed. The decision is taken immediately.