Term Translation Research

Term Translation Research

Use this skill to recommend term translations with explicit evidence, audience scope, and adoption status. Treat "domain-specific", "industry", and "general" usage as separate layers rather than collapsing them into one answer.

Core Rules

• Ground every recommendation in cited sources or explicitly mark it unverified.
• Prefer official, primary, and product-maintained sources over secondary summaries.
• Separate a concept decision from a wording decision: first define the concept, then compare candidate terms.
• Do not call a wording an established term merely because it is understandable or frequent in search results.
• Use finite candidate statuses: established, preferred, acceptable, descriptive, avoid, or unverified.
• Always classify proposals into local fixes and fundamental solutions.

Research follows a finite state machine:

• R0 Defined
• R1 SearchPlanned
• R2 EvidenceCollected
• R3 CandidatesCompared
• R4 Complete or R4 Unverified

Before searching, set a finite evidence budget. By default, inspect at most three high-authority sources for each applicable usage layer plus two targeted collision or freshness checks across the task. Extend the budget once only when the user requests broader research or a material contradiction cannot otherwise be classified; state the extension and its reason.

Workflow

1. Define the term problem.

   • Identify source term, target language, concept definition, domain, target audience, product surface, and known collisions.
   • If the user provides an internal page, glossary, repository, or design artifact, treat it as domain-specific evidence and inspect it before public sources.
   • If the missing context would change the recommendation, ask one concise question. Otherwise proceed and list assumptions.

2. Gather evidence by layer.

   • Domain-specific: internal glossaries, product UI, code identifiers, Notion pages, design files, support docs, and brand guidelines.
   • Industry: standards bodies, government ministries, international organizations, professional associations, academic glossaries, and product-maintained terminology portals.
   • General: dictionaries, public-sector explainers, general audience guides, style guides, and mainstream usage.
   • Use search counts, blogs, and generated summaries only as weak supporting evidence, never as the deciding source.
   • Record publication or update date, retrieval date, last verification date, and freshness status when the source exposes them.

3. Load the detailed reference when making a recommendation.

   • Use REFERENCE.md for the source hierarchy, evidence fields, status definitions, red flags, and output schema.
   • Load only the relevant sections if the task is narrow.

4. Compare candidates.

   • For each candidate, check concept fit, source authority, adoption breadth, audience clarity, collision risk, brand/product fit, and date freshness.
   • Distinguish "technically correct for specialists" from "clear for general users".
   • When two terms collide, prefer preserving the higher-authority established term and rename the lower-authority product or general label.

5. Recommend usage by audience.

   • If one candidate is clearly established for the target layer, recommend it.
   • If no established term exists, say so and propose a preferred or descriptive alternative with caveats.
   • If specialist and general-audience needs differ, provide a use-by-audience table rather than forcing one term.

6. Stop with an explicit terminal state.

   • Use R4 Complete when the concept, audience, and usage layer are explicit; the selected status meets the evidence rule in references/REFERENCE.md; collision and freshness checks are complete; and material contradictions are resolved or disclosed.
   • Use R4 Unverified when the evidence budget is exhausted and any required source, concept match, collision result, or freshness result remains missing. Report the missing evidence instead of continuing open-ended search.

Output Shape

Use the compact shape for one term, one audience, and no material collision:

1. Decision: term, audience, status, confidence, and terminal state.
2. Why: short evidence-backed rationale.
3. Local Fixes and Fundamental Solutions: include none when no proposal is warranted.
4. Unknowns: omit only in R4 Complete when none remain.

Use the substantive shape when comparing multiple candidates or audiences, or when there is a collision, regulatory constraint, material contradiction, or stale evidence:

1. Decision: recommended term, target audience, and status.
2. Use By Audience: domain-specific, industry, and general usage.
3. Evidence Matrix: candidate, layer, status, source authority, fit, risks.
4. Local Fixes: immediate wording or collision-resolution choices.
5. Fundamental Solutions: glossary, termbase, naming policy, or review workflow changes that address root causes.
6. Unknowns: missing sources, stale evidence, or follow-up validation.
7. Terminal State: R4 Complete or R4 Unverified and the stopping reason.

Keep citations close to the claim they support. Prefer concise paraphrase over long quotations.