Compare what each published translation actually promises

Establish the supported meaning before comparing words

Collect the source-language passage, its approved version and date, and the record supporting the claim. State in plain language what the passage is allowed to convey: which product it concerns, the research-only audience, the extent of the statement, and any conditions attached to the offer. Approval by an editor records a business decision; it does not establish that the claim has evidence or is lawful.

If the source passage itself overstates the record, resolve that problem before asking someone to reproduce it faithfully in other languages. A translation that accurately repeats an unsupported source claim remains unsupported. If the languages were produced from different source versions, identify that difference first so the reviewer does not mistake an old offer for a translation error.

Compare meaning in the context visitors see

Open the actual language-specific page and retain a dated record of the disputed wording and its location. Include the heading, button, image text, nearby conditions, and linked policy that shape the offer. A translated sentence may be restrained while its heading or call to action makes a stronger promise. A source-language footer does not resolve a contradictory claim on the localized product page.

Ask the reviewer to compare the subject, audience, certainty, breadth, and conditions of the published phrase with the supported meaning. Determine whether a limitation disappeared, a possibility became an assurance, or a narrowly described document became a broader claim about the catalog. These are comparison questions for the actual wording, not proposed marketing phrases or evidence that any particular store has made those errors.

The FTC’s truth-in-advertising guidance requires truthful, nonmisleading, substantiated advertising across media including websites. It provides a reason to assess the translated claim as published. It does not certify a translation, determine the law of every market where a language is read, or establish that matching the source text makes a phrase legally sufficient.

Give the language reviewer a decision they can support

Send the qualified reviewer the exact public passage, enough surrounding text to understand it, the approved source meaning, and the evidence limit. Ask for a short explanation of any difference in meaning and a correction that stays within that limit. Do not ask the reviewer to improve persuasive force while simultaneously asking them to preserve a narrow claim.

Record a finding as meaning preserved, meaning changed, or unresolved, with the reason. A stylistic difference can preserve meaning; identical terminology can still change a claim when the surrounding sentence differs. When more than one interpretation is plausible, leave the phrase unresolved until someone qualified can explain how readers of that language would understand the full passage.

If the uncertainty concerns whether the offer is permissible in a market, obtain the appropriate qualified legal review separately. Linguistic accuracy and legal applicability answer different questions. If a correction changes the underlying commercial offer rather than only its wording, the business owner must resolve that offer before the editor publishes the translation.

Confirm the correction reached every affected surface

Record the old phrase, approved correction, reviewer decision, source version, and publication owner in the business’s working record. Find other published uses of the disputed phrase, including shared headings, images, and attachments, and assign the correction where the same meaning problem exists. Do not mark another language as checked merely because the same translation tool produced it.

After publication, reopen the affected language page and compare what visitors actually see with the approved correction. Verify the local heading, link label, and relevant policy wording together. A corrected draft is not the published result. Keep the dated original and correction record so the business can explain the change without misrepresenting the earlier page.

Prism’s website review considers the catalog, claims, policies, and business disclosures together within agreed scope. For a consultation, name the public URLs, languages, research-only products, and the specific meaning you want examined; confirm any language expertise, deliverables, fees, and terms before work. Findings are informational rather than a certification. The public contact form is for the website, products, and question, with email follow-up; it is not an appointment, purchase, or processing application. Leave customer records, payment details, and passwords out.

Translation claim comparison

Complete one comparison for each disputed phrase and language. Use only public copy and non-sensitive evidence references. Mark meaning preserved, meaning changed, or unresolved with the reviewer’s reason. Do not mark the page corrected until its published wording has been compared with the approved correction.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.