Assess whether the workflow is appropriate
For confidential, personal or high-risk specialist content, confirm tool permission, data handling and project requirements first. Convenience does not justify uploading unauthorized material to a public service.
Check fluent but misleading output
Focus on negation, conditions, references, terminology, figures, units and omissions. A fluent sentence may simply choose the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous source. Review requires the source and subject context.
Set acceptance criteria for the use
Internal comprehension, public-facing publication and specialist submissions have different requirements. Agree review depth, permitted rewriting, formats and the final approver before deciding whether tool output belongs in the delivery workflow.
A checklist for your brief
- Document risk and confidentiality restrictions
- Permitted tools and workflow
- Human review and acceptance criteria
A common question
Is polishing machine-translated text enough?
Not when accuracy is required. Review needs comparison with the source for meaning, completeness and key data, not just fluency.
This guide supports project preparation and communication; it does not replace legal, financial or specialist technical advice. Service scope, recipient requirements and delivery arrangements must be agreed for the specific project.
Put this guidance into a project brief
- Identify the source files, languages, audience and final use.
- Separate reference examples from binding recipient instructions; provide the current checklist for formal submissions.
- Agree the final format, review responsibilities, timing and revision scope before work starts.
