Translation • Localisation • Human expertise • Websites • Software • Enterprise
VERSIONING EVIDENCE CENTRE™

Earn the right to make stronger claims.

The Evidence Centre defines how Versioning should benchmark quality, publish methodology, separate automated indicators from human evaluation, and avoid cherry-picked comparisons.

VERSIONING · MULTILINGUAL EXPERIENCE

Global content, connected.

Move from source content to market-ready language through a clear combination of technology, context and human expertise.

Versioning multilingual workflow visual
1same source input for every candidate
2language/domain-specific test sets
3blind human review where appropriate
4automated structural checks
5latency and cost captured alongside quality
6results dated and reproducible
METHODOLOGY

How Versioning should test.

Define the use case.

Language pair, domain, market, content type, quality profile and risk level.

Freeze the test set.

Use identical source segments and protected terminology for every provider.

Capture raw outputs.

Do not silently post-edit one provider before comparison.

Run deterministic checks.

Numbers, URLs, tags, placeholders, terminology, completeness and formatting.

Run validated quality evaluation.

Use established metrics/models appropriate to the language and task; report their limitations.

Blind human evaluation.

For important benchmarks, qualified reviewers should not know which provider generated which output.

Capture economics.

Latency, cost, failure rate, post-edit effort and human-review need matter alongside raw quality.

Publish honestly.

State dates, sample size, test conditions, exclusions and conflicts. Never extrapolate one winning pair to “best in the world.”

The goal is not a vanity score.

The goal is a routing system that becomes more accurate as Versioning accumulates lawful benchmark, post-edit and customer-quality data.

Run a benchmark →
W