# Translation review rubric

Review the canonical claims, source evidence, and target-language surface
together. A reviewer must not grade fluency while ignoring whether the caption
is true of the evidence.

## Severity

| Severity | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Changes the training target or contradicts evidence | wrong action, object, actor, hand, negation, quantity, direction, state, outcome, or timestamp |
| Major | Drops or invents a material distinction | missing tool, source/destination, bimanual coordination, uncertainty, goal, error or recovery |
| Minor | Meaning remains usable but expression is degraded | awkward word order, punctuation, nonpreferred terminology without ambiguity |

Any critical error rejects the row. A major error requires correction and
re-review. Minor errors are counted by language and construction so systematic
problems cannot hide inside an average.

## Review dimensions

1. **Evidence fidelity:** every expressed claim is supported by its cited frame,
   interval, sensor, source label, or human judgment.
2. **Action structure:** predicate, actor, patient, instrument, source,
   destination, manner, goal, and result remain distinct.
3. **Hands and bodies:** ego versus other person, left/right, visibility,
   contact, functional role, and bimanual coordination are preserved or marked
   unknown.
4. **Objects and state:** object identity, attributes, containment, contact,
   before/after state, and outcome are not merged or hallucinated.
5. **Time and granularity:** point, interval, atomic action, task phase, and
   whole activity are not treated as synonyms.
6. **Communicative meaning:** observation, directive, question, uncertainty,
   register, polarity, aspect, modality, and reported speech remain explicit.
7. **Language quality:** terminology, grammar, naturalness, locale, and audience
   are appropriate without adding unsupported facts.
8. **Provenance:** source record, revision, evidence selectors, producer,
   method, review state, and loss ledger remain attached.

## Language-specific checks

### Simplified Chinese (`zh-Hans`)

- Do not infer aspect particles, classifiers, completedness, or omitted
  arguments from English.
- Check disposal/passive constructions such as 把 and 被 against semantic roles.
- Confirm that serial actions remain ordered and separate.
- Do not depend on whitespace tokenization.

### Tagalog (`tl`)

- Review verbal voice and pivot together with `ang`, `ng`, and `sa` phrases.
- Do not force English subject–verb–object order onto the target.
- Preserve actor versus patient prominence and source/destination roles.
- Tag code-switched spans instead of silently normalizing them.

### Spanish (`es`)

- Separate grammatical gender from physical-world attributes.
- Check number, determiner, person, register, and imperative morphology.
- Preserve reflexive constructions, clitic roles, and source/destination.

### Hindi (`hi`, experimental)

- Check case/postpositions, agreement, aspect, word order, and politeness.
- Do not infer gender or honorific commitments without evidence.

### English (`en`)

- Distinguish observation from imperative fragments.
- Do not use articles or pronouns to invent definiteness, identity, or gender.

## Reviewer independence

Model output is a candidate. The producing model cannot approve its own row.
High-risk or benchmark rows require two independent bilingual judgments and
adjudication of disagreements. Review records bind the source revision,
canonical claim set, exact target text, rubric version, and reviewer decision.