“Quality” in translation sounds like a simple promise until you ask one uncomfortable question: what happens if it’s wrong? Stephanie and Erik unpack why so many localization pricing conversations get stuck on a single, vague standard, and how that confusion leads teams to either overbuy heavy workflows or quietly push risk onto vendors without paying for it.
We walk through three distinct ways to define translation quality. First is output quality: the measurable correctness of the words on the page, often evaluated with MQM-style scoring or other quality assessment methods. Second is process quality: the workflow signals you can verify and price, like translator qualifications, translation memory health, terminology, and classic TEP steps. Third is the one that changes everything: fit-for-use or outcome-based quality, where “quality” includes warranties, liability, and who owns the consequences of failure across human translation, MT, light post-editing, and full post-editing tiers.
Then we get practical about risk-based pricing. If your organization maps content on a probability-versus-severity grid, you can build multiple service tracks that match real business exposure, from cost-optimized low-risk content to high-assurance, high-liability work that deserves different safeguards and a different price. If you want smarter RFPs, cleaner vendor relationships, and fewer surprises when errors happen, this is the framework to start with. Subscribe for more Field Notes, share this with your localization or procurement team, and leave a review with the toughest “quality” question your org still avoids.
