Guides
Translation agency project delivery checklist in four gates
A translation agency project delivery checklist in four gates: before quoting, before translation, before handback and after acceptance, plus two own rows.
What to take away
- One checklist per project, four gatesbefore quoting, before translation starts, before handback, and after acceptance.
- Everything wrong with a project is cheapest to find before a linguist opens the file, so the second gate saves the most money.
- Tick nothing you have not actually looked at. A checklist filled in from memory is worse than none, because it creates false confidence.
- Add two rows for your own worst recurring failure. Every agency has one.
How to run the checklist
The checklist belongs to the project, not to the account. It starts when the first file arrives and closes when the costs are posted. A row is ticked only when somebody has looked at the thing it names.
- Copy the checklist into the project record when the first file arrives.
- Tick each row only after looking at the file, the note or the person it names.
- Stop at a gate with an open row, and either finish the row or record the exception and who accepted it.
- Keep the completed checklist with the project record.
A knowingly skipped step with a name attached is manageable. A silently skipped step is how a delivery fails and nobody knows why. The wider intake that precedes all of this is covered in the onboarding and delivery guide.
Gate 1: before you quote
- Every file received, named, and version-stamped
- Analysis run against the client's memory, with bands recorded
- Text inside images, scans, or graphics identified and listed separately
- Target locales confirmed as markets, not just languages
- Character limits and placeholder syntax obtained where the content is interface text
- Purpose of the content recordedinternal, customer-facing, or legally operative
- Deadline confirmed, along with what drives it
- Approver named
Gate 1 prevents a quote that prices the wrong job. Analysis bands, text locked in images and the locale list all change what the work costs, so they are recorded before any number goes out.
The numbers themselves come from your own costs, and building a rate from costs shows where each term comes from. A quote template with pricing examples turns the recorded rows into a document.
If the delivered material will be published to the public, ask the client at gate 1 whether accessibility obligations change the format you return, not at gate 3.
The Department of Justice's ADA primer for small business describes the ADA as a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. That is one starting point in a United States setting.
Gate 2: before translation starts
- Source confirmed final, or a freeze date agreed in writing
- Reference material and prior translations received
- Glossary supplied or candidate terms extracted and proposed
- Style notes recorded per locale, including form of address
- Linguist and reviser assigned per pair, both available for the full window
- Both have signed the confidentiality terms that support what the client was promised
- Brief sent to each linguistpurpose, audience, references, and the query process
- In-country reviewer named per locale, with a window and a rule for silence
- Query default agreedwhat happens if a question goes unanswered
This is the gate to be strict about. A file that reaches a translator with no brief, no glossary, and no named reviewer will come back needing a second pass, and the second pass is unpaid.
Gate 2: Before Translation Starts
- Source confirmed final or freeze date agreed
- Reference material and prior translations received
- Glossary supplied or candidate terms proposed
- Style notes recorded per locale
- Linguist and reviser assigned and available
- Confidentiality terms signed by both
- Brief sentpurpose, audience, references, queries
- In-country reviewer named with silence rule
The confidentiality row deserves a second look when the client's promise is strong. The signed terms have to support what was promised, and the contract clauses each side signs are where the two are compared. Send the brief with the query process attached, as fixing intake describes.
Gate 3: before handback
- Revision completed by the second linguist, with disagreements resolved by the named decider
- Terminology checked against the glossary
- Numbers, dates, units, and separators checked against target-market convention
- Length checked where the text sits in a layout or an interface, and any overruns listed
- Placeholders and variables intact and in the right order for the target grammar
- Deliverable produced in the format the client's next step needs
- Open queries listed with what you did by default
- Delivery note writtenwhat changed, what is outstanding, what the client does next
Gate 3 prevents a handback that breaks the client's layout or leaves a disagreement open. When two linguists differ, the named decider settles it, so the client never receives an unresolved choice.
The length row deserves attention. Text does not keep its size across languages, and a longer or shorter rendering can break a design built around the source. Report the specific places rather than delivering and waiting.
Gate 3: Before Handback
- Revision completed and disagreements resolved
- Terminology checked against glossary
- Numbers, dates, units checked per target market
- Length checked in layout, overruns listed
- Placeholders intact and in target grammar order
- Deliverable in the format the next step needs
- Open queries listed with default actions
- Delivery note writtenchanges, outstanding, next
Gate 4: after acceptance
- Acceptance recorded, or the silence rule applied and noted
- Reviewer changes classified as corrections or preferences
- Preferences written into the glossary and style notes with reasoning
- Memory updated and cleaned
- Internal hours and subcontractor costs posted against the project
- Anything that went wrong logged as a candidate row for this checklist
Gate 4 turns one finished project into the inputs of the next. Preferences that reach the glossary and the memory stop recurring as reviewer comments, and posted costs show whether the account earns. Those costs feed the break-even arithmetic.
The last row is how the checklist grows. A failure logged here becomes one of the two rows you add for your own recurring problem.
Spoken work and public feedback
If the project includes any spoken component, run it through a separate track. Interpreting is a distinct profession from written translation, with its own scheduling and briefing needs, and folding it into a document checklist loses the parts that matter.
At gate 4, resist turning acceptance into a review request as a reflex. If you do collect public feedback, use one process for every client, disclose material connections, and leave critical comments visible. The FTC's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule addresses deceptive and unfair conduct involving consumer reviews and testimonials.
Common questions
Is this too much process for a small job?
Gate 2 and gate 3 apply at any size. Gate 1 shrinks to four rows on a single document. What does not scale down is the brief, because a translator with no context guesses at the same rate whatever the word count.
Who should own the checklist?
Whoever runs the project, with the owner spot-checking gate 2 on new accounts. Gate 2 is where discipline slips first.
Should the client see it?
A version of gate 1 and gate 2, yes. It shows them what you need and why, and it makes their own obligations concrete.
What if a gate cannot be completed?
Record the exception and who accepted it. A knowingly skipped step with a name attached is manageable. A silently skipped step is how a delivery fails and nobody knows why.
