Why a “fluent” translation is not automatically safe
A common scenario in technical documentation: a company quickly receives an AI-translated manual. The text seems coherent, flows well and contains no obvious grammatical errors. However, during specialist review, issues emerge that can directly affect correct product use and generate safety risks.
In instruction manual translation, fluency alone is not a sufficient quality criterion.
Real examples of errors corrected through human review
Example 1 – terminological inconsistency
A term such as “setting” appears translated as “setting,” “configuration,” and “parameter” within the same manual. Human review establishes the correct term and applies it consistently.
Example 2 – incomplete procedural steps
“Press and hold the button until the LED flashes.”
AI omits or vaguely translates the stopping condition. The human translator clarifies which button, how long, and which signal confirms the action.
Example 3 – weakened warnings
“Do not use the device near water.”
Automatically translated as “It is not recommended to use…”. Review restores a firm prohibition in line with safety standards.
Example 4 – units and values
Values such as “5 V / 1 A” or “±0.3 g” must be flawless. Review verifies symbols, spacing and numerical consistency.
Why human review is indispensable
In technical manual translation, review is not cosmetic—it is a safety control. It checks terminology, procedural logic and real user impact.
At Verba Expert, automated translation is only the starting point. Final quality is built through specialised human review, ensuring the manual is clear, safe and compliant.