In most organisations the repetition rate is seen as an outcome: whatever comes out is what it is. Yet the rate is directly linked to how the source text is written, and it can be raised.
Matching works at sentence level
The memory divides the text into sentences and searches for each sentence separately. A sentence in which one word has changed ceases to be an exact match.
Small differences lower the rate
Sentences that carry the same meaning but are written differently sit in the memory as two separate records. This variety in the source is reflected directly in the cost.
Consistency of the source text is the real lever
When writing rules are applied inside the organisation, the same expressions are written in the same way and the match rate rises.
Templates give the highest rate
In documents that have standard sections, the match rate is markedly high. Every type of document that can be tied to a template produces this gain.
Memory maintenance is essential
If approved corrections are not entered in the memory, old and faulty records come back as matches. The rate rises but its value falls.
Conflicting records are cleaned up
If there is more than one rendering for the same sentence, the tool cannot know which one to offer. Cleaning up is what makes the rate useful.
Past translations can be aligned
Old translations in the archive can be taken into the memory. Records taken in without their quality being assessed, however, spoil the jobs that follow.
Counter-view: consistency slows the writing down
It is true that keeping to rules while writing inside the organisation brings an extra burden. Yet this burden falls on the few people who write the source text, whereas the gain appears in every language and in every document; the balance is clearly in favour of the gain.
The rate varies by type of document
It is normal for it to be low in original texts and high in template-based texts. The average on its own carries no information.
A high rate is not always good
A very high rate may also show that the memory is not being updated. The rate is read together with the trend in findings.
The memory is kept by direction
A separate memory is needed for each language direction. A mixed structure lowers the quality of the suggestions.
Without ownership the gain is not lasting
If the memory stays with the supplier, the accumulated gain from repetition is lost when the relationship ends.
The rate is measured and reported
A rate that is not tracked periodically also makes the return on the investment in infrastructure invisible.
The gain becomes marked from the second year
In the first year the memory is small. An assessment made early comes out in favour of cutting the investment.
Match tiers are defined in the contract
If it is not in writing how the gain provided by the memory will be passed on to the buyer, the benefit is not visible even if the rate rises. When it is defined at the outset how each match tier will be treated, the repetition rate ceases to be a technical detail and becomes a commercial item that can be tracked directly.
Takeaway
The repetition rate is not an outcome but a variable that can be managed. Writing the source text consistently, templating, memory maintenance and ownership resting with the organisation; when these four are applied together, the same volume runs with less labour every year.