Translation Audit

Translation Audit — Alan Hirsch Corpus

Purpose

Perform a rigorous, evidence-based linguistic quality audit of translated books in the Alan Hirsch corpus. The audit samples ~10,000 words from a specified language, identifies the matching English source passages, and grades the translation on a structured 100-point rubric.

This skill applies to: Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR), Latin American Spanish (es), German (de), European Portuguese (pt), French (fr), and Mandarin Chinese (zh).

Note on Mandarin: The corpus does not currently contain Mandarin (zh) translations. If zh or mandarin is requested, report this clearly and offer to audit one of the available languages instead.

Invocation

/translation-audit [language]

Arguments:

If no language is specified, ask the user to choose.

Corpus Inventory

The corpus lives at: corpus/alan_hirsch/

Available translations by language suffix:

Step-by-Step Execution

Step 1 — Build the inventory

ls corpus/alan_hirsch/ | grep "\-[LANG_SUFFIX]$"

For each matching book directory, run:

ls corpus/alan_hirsch/[book-slug]/

Build a mental map of: { book_slug → [chapter_files] } for the target language.

Also identify the English source book for each translation:

• 5q-es → 5q
• reframation-pt-BR → reframation
• the-forgotten-ways-de → the-forgotten-ways
• etc. (strip the language suffix to get the English slug)

Step 2 — Stratified random sampling

Goal: Collect approximately 10,000 words of translated text, distributed across as many books and chapters as possible.

Sampling strategy:

1. If multiple books exist: select 2–4 books, spread across the available set (not all from one book)
2. Within each book: select chapters from different positions — pick from the beginning (ch01–02), middle (ch04–06), and end (last chapters)
3. Read each selected chapter in full
4. Track a running word count from the frontmatter word_count field or estimate from character count
5. Continue sampling until you have approximately 10,000 words of translated text
6. If a single book only (e.g., German has only the-forgotten-ways-de), sample 5–7 chapters distributed across the book

Read selected translation files:

cat corpus/alan_hirsch/[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md

Step 3 — Locate English source passages

For each translation chapter sampled, find the corresponding English source chapter:

• Same canonical_id with the English book slug, OR
• Match by chapter_slug in the English book directory

ls corpus/alan_hirsch/[english-book-slug]/
cat corpus/alan_hirsch/[english-book-slug]/[matching-chapter].md

Read and retain the corresponding English passages for comparison.

Step 4 — Apply the linguistic rubric

Evaluate the translation against the rubric below. For each dimension, document:

• The score awarded
• Maximum points available
• 2–5 specific issues with exact location (book slug, chapter file, paragraph or sentence)
• The problematic source text
• The current translation
• A recommended improvement

Linguistic Rubric (100 Points)

Dimension 1 — Semantic Fidelity (25 pts)

Measures whether the translation transfers the complete propositional and theological content of the source, without omission, addition, or distortion.

Full marks (23–25): Every concept present. Nuanced qualifiers preserved. Theological paradoxes intact. No paraphrasing that shifts meaning.

Good (18–22): Minor omissions of secondary clauses. Occasional softening of strong assertions. No core meaning lost.

Adequate (12–17): Noticeable condensation. Some metaphors flattened. Key theological nuances diluted.

Weak (6–11): Significant omissions. Paraphrase replaces precision. Source arguments obscured.

Poor (0–5): Major conceptual losses. Fundamental misrepresentation of the author's position.

Watch for in theological texts:

• Omission of conditional clauses ("if," "unless," "insofar as")
• Softening of prophetic statements
• Loss of rhetorical tension (e.g., antithesis, paradox)
• Addition of explanatory glosses not in source

Dimension 2 — Register and Voice Preservation (20 pts)

Measures whether Alan's distinctive pastoral-prophetic voice is preserved: Christocentric gravity, narrative energy, prophetic urgency, collegial warmth, and theological depth.

Full marks (18–20): Voice is unmistakably Alan's in the target language. Christocentric tone intact. Prophetic passages carry weight. Pastoral warmth present.

Good (14–17): Voice largely preserved. Occasional flatness or over-formality. Prophetic urgency slightly diluted.

Adequate (9–13): Noticeably more generic. Theological depth present but voice is not distinctive. Feels like academic prose rather than pastoral-prophetic writing.

Weak (4–8): Voice largely lost. Translation sounds like a committee-produced document. No distinctiveness.

Poor (0–3): Alan's voice is unrecognizable. Register mismatch throughout.

Watch for in theological texts:

• Academic formalization of conversational passages
• Loss of direct address ("you," "we")
• Removal of rhetorical questions
• Toning down of prophetic imperatives
• Loss of sentence rhythm and staccato emphasis

Dimension 3 — Target Language Fluency (20 pts)

Measures whether the translation reads naturally in the target language — free of calques, unidiomatic constructions, and source-language interference.

Full marks (18–20): Reads as if written natively. No detectable English substrate. Idioms and expressions are target-language native.

Good (14–17): Mostly fluent. Occasional stiff construction. Minor Anglicisms.

Adequate (9–13): Clearly translated. Some awkward phrases. Sentence-level interference evident.

Weak (4–8): Pervasive Anglicisms. Frequent unidiomatic constructions. Reading is effortful.

Poor (0–3): Machine-translation feel. Text is difficult to read in the target language.

Language-specific watchpoints:

• Spanish (es): ser/estar conflation, improper subjunctive, false cognates (e.g., "actual" ≠ "actual"), direct calques of "to be"
• Portuguese pt-BR: Europeanisms intruding (clitic placement), informal register shifts, false friends from Spanish
• Portuguese pt: Over-reliance on gerunds in pt-BR style (Brazilianisms in European PT), register mismatch for Portuguese publishing conventions
• German (de): Overly literal compound words, English loan words where German equivalents exist, improper Konjunktiv II for reported speech
• French (fr): Anglicisms ("challenge," "timing"), register shifts between soutenu and courant, calqued progressive forms ("est en train de")

Dimension 4 — Theological Terminology Accuracy (15 pts)

Measures accurate rendering of Alan's specialized theological vocabulary, biblical citations, and missiological terminology.

Full marks (14–15): All key terms correctly and consistently rendered. Biblical citations match standard translations in target language. Missiological terms appropriately localized or explained.

Good (11–13): Key terms mostly correct. 1–2 instances of inconsistent rendering. Biblical quotes largely accurate.

Adequate (7–10): Several term inconsistencies. Some terms transliterated when translation exists. Biblical citations occasionally paraphrased.

Weak (3–6): Significant term errors. APEST, mDNA, or other core vocabulary rendered inconsistently or incorrectly.

Poor (0–2): Core theological terms untranslated, mistranslated, or omitted.

Key terms to verify:

Dimension 5 — Syntactic Adaptation (10 pts)

Measures whether sentence structure has been appropriately restructured for the target language's syntax, rather than mirroring English word order.

Full marks (9–10): Sentences fully restructured for target language. Verb placement, clause ordering, and paragraph organization follow target-language conventions.

Good (7–8): Most sentences restructured. Occasional English word-order calques.

Adequate (4–6): Noticeable structural Anglicisms. Some sentences are syntactically uncomfortable.

Weak (2–3): Widespread structural interference. Text reads as translated, not native.

Poor (0–1): Near word-for-word structural calque throughout.

Language-specific requirements:

• German: Verb-second rule, subordinate clause verb-final placement, correct Satzklammer
• Spanish/Portuguese: Appropriate subject-verb inversion in questions, correct relative clause structure, proper placement of reflexive pronouns
• French: Correct inversion in questions, appropriate use of "dont" vs "de qui," liaison in flowing prose

Dimension 6 — Internal Consistency (10 pts)

Measures whether key terms, names, and concepts are translated consistently across the sampled chapters, with no unexplained variation.

Full marks (9–10): All key terms consistent. No unexplained variation. Consistent use of formal/informal address throughout.

Good (7–8): Minor inconsistencies in secondary terms. Core vocabulary consistent.

Adequate (4–6): Noticeable inconsistencies in important terms. Reader would notice variation.

Weak (2–3): Core terminology inconsistent. "Missional" rendered 3 different ways, etc.

Poor (0–1): Fundamental inconsistency throughout. Suggests multiple translators without harmonization.

Report Template

After completing the analysis, produce the following report verbatim in structure (populate with your findings):

# Translation Quality Audit Report
## Alan Hirsch Corpus — [Language Name]

**Audit Date:** [Date]
**Language Audited:** [Full language name] (`[code]`)
**Books Sampled:** [list]
**Chapters Sampled:** [count] chapters, ~[word count] words
**English Baseline:** [corresponding English book(s)]

---

## Agentic Confidence Overview

*Why should a non-speaker trust this audit?*

[Write 3–5 paragraphs here addressing: (1) the objective, text-internal evidence methods used (cross-referencing source vs. target, terminology tracking, structural comparison) that do not require native-speaker intuition; (2) how the rubric criteria — fidelity, register, consistency — can be evaluated against the English original even without target-language fluency; (3) Claude's multilingual training and evaluation on [target language] theological and literary prose; (4) the specific calibration signals used (e.g., known biblical citation forms in [target language], established missiological vocabulary standards, recognized publishing conventions); (5) what limitations remain and how the report flags uncertainty where it exists.]

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Score: [X] / 100** — [Grade: Excellent / Good / Adequate / Needs Revision / Poor]

| Dimension | Score | Max | Grade |
|-----------|-------|-----|-------|
| Semantic Fidelity | | 25 | |
| Register & Voice | | 20 | |
| Target Language Fluency | | 20 | |
| Theological Terminology | | 15 | |
| Syntactic Adaptation | | 10 | |
| Internal Consistency | | 10 | |
| **TOTAL** | | **100** | |

**Key Strengths:**
- [Bullet 1]
- [Bullet 2]
- [Bullet 3]

**Priority Issues:**
- [Bullet 1 — most important]
- [Bullet 2]
- [Bullet 3]

---

## Corpus Sample

### Sampled Material

| Book | Chapter File | Words | Position in Book |
|------|-------------|-------|-----------------|
| [slug] | [filename] | [n] | [Early/Middle/Late] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| **Total** | | **~[total]** | |

---

## Detailed Findings by Dimension

### 1. Semantic Fidelity — [X] / 25

**Assessment:** [2–3 sentence overall assessment of this dimension]

#### Issues Found

---

**Issue SF-01** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]

- **Location:** `[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md`, paragraph [N] / section "[section heading]"
- **English source:**
  > "[Exact English passage]"
- **Current translation:**
  > "[Current translated passage]"
- **Problem:** [Specific explanation of what semantic content is lost, distorted, or added]
- **Recommended improvement:**
  > "[Suggested improved translation]"
- **Impact on score:** −[N] pts

---

**Issue SF-02** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]
[... repeat structure ...]

---

### 2. Register & Voice Preservation — [X] / 20

**Assessment:** [2–3 sentence overall assessment]

#### Issues Found

---

**Issue RV-01** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]

- **Location:** `[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md`, paragraph [N]
- **English source:**
  > "[passage]"
- **Current translation:**
  > "[passage]"
- **Problem:** [Explanation]
- **Recommended improvement:**
  > "[Suggestion]"
- **Impact on score:** −[N] pts

---

[... continue for each dimension: TF = Target Language Fluency, TT = Theological Terminology, SA = Syntactic Adaptation, IC = Internal Consistency ...]

---

## Findings Summary Table

| ID | Dimension | Severity | Location | Issue Summary |
|----|-----------|----------|----------|---------------|
| SF-01 | Semantic Fidelity | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| SF-02 | Semantic Fidelity | Minor | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| RV-01 | Register & Voice | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| TF-01 | Target Fluency | Critical | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| TT-01 | Theological Terms | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| SA-01 | Syntactic Adapt. | Minor | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| IC-01 | Consistency | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## Recommendations

### Immediate Revisions (Critical/Major issues)
[Numbered list of the most important changes needed, referencing issue IDs]

### Structural Considerations
[Any patterns suggesting systemic translation approach issues — e.g., translator unfamiliar with Alan's missiological vocabulary, possible machine-translation base with light human editing, multiple translators without style guide, etc.]

### Glossary Gaps
[Any terms that need standardized translations or glossary entries that appear to be missing]

---

## Auditor Notes

*Limitations and confidence qualifications for this specific audit:*

[Honest statement of what this audit cannot confirm — e.g., cultural idiom appropriateness for a specific regional audience, whether target-language readers would flag additional issues, any chapters that could not be cross-referenced due to missing English source material, word count limitations of the sample.]

---

*Report generated by Claude Code translation-audit skill — Alan Hirsch Corpus*
*Rubric version: 1.0 | Skill path: .claude/skills/translation-audit/SKILL.md*

Execution Notes

• Sample size target: ~10,000 words of translated text. If a language has very few chapters (e.g., French fr has only 5 chapters, ~4,000 words total), audit the complete available corpus and note the limited sample size in the report.
• Issue density: Aim to document 2–5 issues per rubric dimension. Do not manufacture issues — if a dimension is well-executed, say so and award full or near-full marks with a brief explanation.
• Exact quotation: Always quote the actual text from the file — never paraphrase what the text says. Preserve formatting (bold, italics, blockquotes) in the quoted passages.
• Location precision: Every issue must include the exact file name and a locating reference (paragraph number from the top of the content body, or section heading). This allows the translator to find the passage immediately.
• No hedging on scores: Commit to a specific numeric score for each dimension. Document your reasoning. Do not give fractional scores.
• Mandarin not available: If zh/mandarin is requested, respond: "Mandarin (zh) translations are not currently in the Alan Hirsch corpus. Available languages: Latin American Spanish (es), Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR), European Portuguese (pt), German (de), French (fr). Please choose one of these."
• Output destination: Write the report to corpus/alan_hirsch/_index/translation-audit-[lang]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md. Also print the full report to the conversation.