Discuss the project before sharing sensitive material
Tell Globalize what you need translated, the source and target languages, the intended audience or use, approximate volume, and any confidentiality or handling requirements. Ask how the proposed workflow applies to your specific project before sending unpublished, personal, legal, medical, financial, or otherwise sensitive content.
Do not include passwords, account credentials, or restricted data in an initial enquiry. The current approved information does not specify which AI tools are used, how data is processed or retained, or whether an alternative non-AI workflow is available.
What human review does—and does not—mean
Human review means a person reviews AI-assisted translation as part of the service. It does not establish a particular review checklist, subject-matter qualification, second-review process, error rate, confidentiality control, or accuracy guarantee. The project scope and use case should be discussed before a workflow is selected.
AI-assisted translation is not a substitute for legal, medical, financial, regulatory, or other professional advice, and it does not guarantee acceptance by a recipient or a particular business outcome.
Request an assessment
Provide a non-sensitive description or sample, the language direction, intended use, and any written requirements. Ask which process is proposed for your content and whether the requested sensitivity can be accommodated before transferring full files.
Request a Free Quote — `info@globalizetl.com` — WhatsApp: `+20 106 299 0808`.
Decide whether the proposed approach fits the material
Before selecting a workflow, classify the content by purpose and sensitivity. A public, repetitive description may raise different considerations from an unpublished contract, patient record, employee file, financial report, or product incident. The fact that a person reviews AI-assisted output does not tell you which model is used, what data is retained, which review steps occur, or whether the reviewer has a particular subject qualification.
| Question to resolve | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What content and language pair? | Suitability may differ by subject and direction |
| What is the intended use? | External filing and high-impact use need clear recipient requirements |
| How sensitive is the source? | Handling arrangements should be known before files are transferred |
| What does human review cover? | The phrase alone does not define depth, independence, or checklist |
| Can the work use another method? | Availability of a non-AI option is not confirmed and must be asked |
Do not place confidential material, personal identifiers, or credentials into a sample enquiry before sharing arrangements are understood. Ask for a written description of the proposed scope and limits, then decide whether it fits the material. A human review step may reduce some risks but does not guarantee error detection, privacy controls, legal suitability, or acceptance by a recipient.
Choose the right level of human review
The review required depends on the material and its intended use. A draft for internal orientation may need a different review depth from a public-facing page, a contract, a medical record, a financial statement, a safety instruction, or an official document. Describe the consequences of an error, the intended reader, and the parts that require particular attention. The project scope should state whether the output is a translation, a summary, a rewrite, or a combination; these tasks are not interchangeable.
Human review should compare the output with the source, not merely make the new text sound fluent. Check names, numbers, dates, negation, qualifications, references, terminology, completeness, and whether the language model added or omitted meaning. For specialist material, the reviewer should have the relevant language and subject competence for the assigned task. A fluent result is not by itself evidence that a claim or figure is correct.
| Check | Review question |
|---|---|
| Meaning | Does each sentence preserve the source’s statement and limits? |
| Completeness | Are headings, notes, tables, labels, and footnotes accounted for? |
| Data | Do names, dates, amounts, identifiers, and units match the source? |
| Unsupported output | Did the system invent a fact, citation, or explanation? |
| Intended use | Is the review level appropriate for the audience and consequence? |
Set data and workflow boundaries before using tools
Before sending material to any automated system, confirm what content may be processed, which tool is authorized, and whether the file contains confidential, personal, regulated, or commercially sensitive information. Do not place passwords, access tokens, or unnecessary personal data in prompts. The project owner should follow the applicable contract, privacy policy, and information-handling rules for the actual tool; this page does not promise a particular retention or security control.
Keep the source, generated output, reviewer edits, and final approved version distinguishable. Record the tool and version when the organization’s workflow requires it, and make corrections traceable for high-impact material. If the source is unclear, the correct next step is clarification from its owner, not asking a model to guess. Where a recipient requires a named certification, authorized translator, or specific process, verify that requirement separately before choosing a workflow.
AI assistance can support suitable language tasks, but it does not replace professional judgment, subject review, the source owner’s decisions, or the receiving authority’s rules. Confirm the deliverable and review boundary before work begins.
Define approval and correction ownership
A project brief should identify who may accept machine-assisted language, who performs the human review, and who approves the final output. Decide how corrections will be returned and whether a change to the source requires a new comparison. Keep a clean final copy separate from working prompts and intermediate drafts. Do not treat a model’s self-assessment, confidence statement, or fluent wording as an independent quality certificate. The responsible reviewer should be able to trace important edits to the source and explain why they were made.