Among quality findings, the terminology error is the type that can be measured most objectively: if there is an approved list, compliance is established by scanning. If there is no list, the assessment shifts to subject knowledge and becomes open to debate. The existence of the list therefore determines the nature of the measurement.
Definition
It is failure to follow the approved rendering or the wrong choice of a subject-field term. There are two different cases. The distinction is made.
Not following the list
The rendering approved by the client has not been used. The finding is objective. A scan is sufficient.
Use of a forbidden rendering
A rendering that the list asks not to be used has occurred. The finding is plain. The tool catches it.
Subject-field term error
A rendering that is not established in the sector has been chosen. The assessment calls for expertise. A source is cited.
Relying on the dictionary rendering
The rendering in a general dictionary may not be in use in the field. A parallel text shows this. The method is applied.
Assessment when there is no list
If no approved list was provided, the finding is open to debate. The basis is the sources of the field. The record is shown.
Responsibility for the list
A client who does not provide a list cannot impose preferences afterwards. This limit is written in the contract. The balance is preserved.
Inconsistent use
The same concept being referred to with different renderings within the text is a separate finding. Consistency is measured. The category is kept apart.
Use of abbreviations
An abbreviation not expanded at first occurrence may count as a finding. The rule is defined in the guide. Its application is checked.
Altered standard numbers
The number of a cited standard cannot be altered. Alteration is a major finding. The rule is strict.
Brand and proper names
Brand and product names are not translated. Translating them counts as a major finding. The limit is clear.
Rendering of organisation names
If an official foreign-language rendering exists, it is used. An invented rendering is a finding. The source is the organisation.
Scanning with a tool
Terminology compliance can be scanned with software. The scan finds what was overlooked. The step is added.
False positives
Deviations made because the context required them are not errors. The findings are filtered. Blind application spoils the text.
Reasoned deviation
A deliberate deviation is recorded with its reason. The record is shown in the assessment. The finding falls away.
Severity
The severity of a terminology error changes with the document type. It is high in a contract, lower in promotional material. The criterion is adapted.
Severity in defined terms
Deviation in the terms of a contract's own definitions section carries the highest severity. The provision becomes disputable. The rule is strict.
How to prevent it
The list is built at the start of the job and loaded into the tool. Correcting afterwards is expensive. The order matters.
Updating the list
New renderings are entered in the list and announced to the team. An unmaintained list produces findings. Updating is regular.
The list determines the measurement
In this category the number of findings mostly measures the quality not of the translator but of the preparation; terminology findings in a job for which no approved list was provided show a process gap rather than a translation error. The assessment is read accordingly. The root cause is sought in the right place.
Limits of measurement
For new concepts that are not in the list, the rendering decision is the translator's. These decisions count not as findings but as suggestions. The list is fed.