# Bilingual Quality Assurance

Compare source and target content for omissions, additions, meaning shifts, terminology, numbers, variables, functional consequences, and verified corrections.

## Usage note

Use this worksheet with the locked source and target versions visible together. Bilingual QA focuses on transfer of meaning; it should be performed by someone qualified in both languages and familiar enough with the subject to identify consequential shifts. Add functional, cultural, legal, accessibility, or specialist review when the asset requires it.

## How to use this template

1. Record the locked source and target versions, locale pair, asset scope, reviewer qualifications, and risk.
2. Compare each unit for preserved actors, actions, facts, conditions, scope, certainty, sequence, and intended result.
3. Run separate high-risk passes for terminology, numbers, names, links, variables, disclosures, and non-body content.
4. Log source or target defects with category, severity, user impact, correction owner, and required escalation.
5. Recompare corrected content in context, record evidence and approval, and hand remaining functional issues to the wider review.

## Blank template

### QA setup

- **Asset and content type:** [Title, page, product flow, document, or media]
- **Source locale and version:** [Locale and exact version]
- **Target locale and version:** [Locale and exact version]
- **Comparison scope:** [Included and excluded sections]
- **Audience and task:** [Who relies on the content and why]
- **Risk level and reason:** [Low, medium, high, or critical]
- **Translator:** [Name or provider]
- **Bilingual reviewer and qualifications:** [Enter]
- **Subject owner:** [Name or team]
- **Review date and release target:** [Dates]
- **Authorized adaptation reference:** [Brief or decision record]

### Segment comparison

- **Segment or component ID:** [Stable location]
- **Source text:** [Exact text]
- **Target text:** [Exact text]
- **Source meaning:** [Actor, action, object, condition, timing, and outcome]
- **Required context:** [Screenshot, prior state, term, or evidence]
- **Comparison result:** [Pass, question, or defect]
- **Preserved adaptation:** [If non-literal, explain approved function]
- **Defect category:** [Omission, addition, mistranslation, term, number, token, or other]
- **User consequence:** [What could be misunderstood or fail]
- **Severity:** [Blocker, high, medium, or low with reason]
- **Proposed correction:** [Enter]
- **Correction owner:** [Translator, source owner, product owner, or other]

### Systematic transfer checks

- [ ] All headings, paragraphs, lists, controls, captions, notes, and alternatives are represented.
- [ ] Actors, actions, negation, conditions, exceptions, scope, and certainty remain equivalent.
- [ ] Product and subject terminology follows the approved concept entries.
- [ ] Names, dates, times, numbers, percentages, currencies, units, and ranges match.
- [ ] Quotations, citations, links, attributions, and disclosures remain connected correctly.
- [ ] Variables, placeholders, plurals, gender behavior, code, and protected syntax are intact.
- [ ] Cross-references, table relationships, sequence, and pronoun references remain clear.
- [ ] Authorized adaptations preserve function without inventing claims or removing limits.

### Resolution and signoff

- **Source defect escalation:** [Question, owner, answer, and affected segments]
- **Corrected target:** [Exact final text or version]
- **Retest evidence:** [Build, file, screenshot, or notes]
- **Nearby-content regression check:** [Result]
- **Open issues for functional/cultural review:** [List]
- **Bilingual QA decision:** [Pass, conditional pass, or fail]
- **Reviewer and date:** [Name and YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Final release owner:** [Name or team]