translation-quality-defect-families

name

translation-quality-defect-families

description

Use when translating, reviewing, revising, or retrospectively improving LifeBook translations and a recurring or potentially recurring translation-quality defect is found. Trigger for fidelity, literary quality, readability, reader engagement, Chinese fluency, terminology, names, titles/subtitles, notes, figure/table/formula text interfaces, source-language syntax residue, stiff or literal sentences, over-explanation, invented additions, short-sentence fragmentation, metaphor collision, list/rhythm punctuation, unclear pronouns, or any other quality issue that may form a defect family. This skill is for translation quality, not EPUB structure, cover, rights, release, or other format-only workflow issues.

译文质量问题族 / Translation Quality Defect Families

Boundary / 边界

Use this skill to turn recurring translation-quality problems into reusable correction knowledge. 使用本 skill，把反复出现或可能系统性复现的译文质量问题，沉淀成可复用的修正规则。

This skill focuses on the translation as a readable book: fidelity, literary force, target-language fluency, terminology, narrative rhythm, reader engagement, and source-supported expression. 本 skill 关注“译文作为一本书”的质量：忠实度、文学性、目标语顺读、术语、叙事节奏、读者吸引力，以及所有有原文依据的表达转换。

Do not use this skill for format-only issues such as EPUB manifest errors, cover policy, release metadata, local-path leaks, or CI failures unless they also expose a translation-quality pattern. 不要把本 skill 用于纯格式问题，例如 EPUB manifest、封面 policy、release metadata、本机路径泄漏或 CI 失败；除非这些问题同时暴露了译文质量模式。

Required Workflow / 必须流程

When a review finds a defect that may recur, do the following before declaring the work closed. 评审发现可能复现的问题后，必须先完成以下步骤，才能宣布关闭。

1. Classify the defect family. 先归纳问题族。
2. Record how it was found: chapter control, random sample, human note, rg scan, glossary scan, source comparison, generated XHTML inspection, or reader feedback. 记录发现方式：章节控制、随机样本、人工意见、rg 扫描、术语扫描、原文对照、生成 XHTML 检查或读者反馈。
3. Define the risk: what reader misunderstanding, fidelity loss, rhythm damage, terminology drift, or unauthorized invention it causes. 定义风险：它会造成什么误读、失真、节奏损伤、术语漂移或擅自加戏。
4. Audit similar cases with the cheapest reliable method first: glossary fields, rg, title maps, source-to-target term lists, chapter controls, or targeted small-context agent review. 先用最低 token 且可靠的方法查同类：术语表字段、rg、标题映射、源语-目标语词表、章节控制，或小上下文 agent 专项复核。
5. Fix confirmed matches and record justified exceptions. 修复确认命中，并记录合理例外。
6. Add or merge a reusable lesson in the register below. 在下方注册表追加或合并可复用经验。 This is mandatory in the same round as the fix: do not postpone skill backfill to a final summary, because later agents will otherwise rediscover the same family. 必须在同一轮修复中完成 skill 回填：不要拖到最终总结，否则后续 agent 会反复重新发现同一问题族。
7. Recheck with the appropriate gate: full-chapter recheck for chapter-stage defects, new-seed stratified random sample for post-EPUB defects, or a targeted family audit for book-wide risks. 用合适门禁复查：章节阶段问题做整章复查，EPUB 后抽检问题用新 seed 复抽，全书风险做问题族专项审计。

Update Discipline / 更新纪律

Do not append repetitive notes blindly. 不要盲目重复追加。

Before adding a new entry, search this file for the family, source-language mechanism, and target-language symptom. If an entry already exists, update that entry with a sharper detection method, better fix pattern, or a concrete example. 新增条目前，先搜索本文件中的问题族、源语机制和目标语症状。已有同族条目时，应合并更新：补更准的发现方法、更好的修复模式或具体例子。

Every entry should stay reusable across books. Book-specific names may appear as examples, but the rule must be phrased as a general lesson. 每个条目都应能跨书复用。可以用具体书名或人名做例子，但规则必须写成通用经验。

Use bilingual Chinese-English wording for new major sections. Chinese may lead when the expected contributor is Chinese. 新增主要段落使用中英文双语。面向中文贡献者时，中文可置前。

Validator Fields / 校验字段

For random spot-check rounds, book-local evidence belongs in reviews/random_spotcheck/round_XXX/fixes/fix_log.md and verification/closure_check.md, but reusable translation-quality lessons must be merged here in the same round. The pass validator checks this through machine-readable fields. 随机抽检轮次中，书内证据写入 reviews/random_spotcheck/round_XXX/fixes/fix_log.md 和 verification/closure_check.md，但可复用译文质量经验必须在同一轮合并回填到本 skill。强校验会通过机器可读字段检查这件事。

When a round found translation-quality defect families, set: 发现译文质量问题族时，必须填写：

defect_family_count: {total_family_count}
translation_quality_defect_family_count: {quality_family_count}
translation_quality_skill_backfill: "UPDATED" # or "MERGED"
translation_quality_skill_backfill_path: "skills/translation-quality-defect-families/SKILL.md"
translation_quality_skill_backfill_summary: "{what was added or merged: finding method, classification, low-token audit, fix pattern, recheck}"

And in closure_check.md: 并在 closure_check.md 写入：

translation_quality_skill_backfill_verified: true

If the round found only format, asset, path, EPUB structure, or other non-translation-quality issues, set translation_quality_defect_family_count: 0, translation_quality_skill_backfill: "NOT_APPLICABLE", and write a concrete translation_quality_skill_backfill_not_applicable_reason. 如果该轮只有格式、资产、路径、EPUB 结构或其他非译文质量问题，应写 translation_quality_defect_family_count: 0、translation_quality_skill_backfill: "NOT_APPLICABLE"，并填写具体的 translation_quality_skill_backfill_not_applicable_reason。

Low-Token Audit Pattern / 低 token 审计模式

• Start with machine-readable evidence: glossary/terms.csv, forbidden renderings, title maps, chapter controls, sample manifests, and review tables. 先用机器可读证据：glossary/terms.csv、禁用正文写法、标题映射、章节控制、抽样 manifest 和评审表。
• Use rg to collect candidates before asking an agent to read prose. 先用 rg 收集候选，再让 agent 阅读片段。
• Give the agent only the candidate passage, nearby source text, relevant glossary rows, and the current family rule. 只给 agent 候选段、邻近原文、相关术语行和当前问题族规则。
• Treat random sampling as discovery, not as the main polishing engine. 随机抽检用于发现盲点，不是主要润色引擎。
• Treat full-chapter review as the main place to catch fidelity, fluency, rhythm, and terminology issues. 忠实度、顺读、节奏和术语问题，主要应在每章全量复检阶段解决。

Defect Family Register / 问题族注册表

High-Impact Literal and Explanatory Opening Prose / 高影响开篇直译腔与解释腔

• Symptom: Author/source prefaces, introductions, openings, first chapters, or other reader-entry passages are accurate but sound stiff, flat, awkward, overly literal, or explanatory in the target language. The prose may use causal bridges such as 原因在于, conditional chains such as 要是只能...就必然, abstract noun stacks, or target-only analytical wording that explains the source instead of becoming a natural book sentence. 症状：原作者/原书序言、导言、开篇、首章或其他读者入口段落意思准确，但目标语读起来不顺口、怪、平、硬、直译感重或解释腔明显。常见表现包括 原因在于 一类因果桥、要是只能...就必然 一类条件链、抽象名词堆叠，或把原意说明出来而不是转成自然书面句。
• Find by: Treat opening files and headings matching preface|introduction|序言|前言|导言|开篇|首章|第一章 as high impact before random sampling. Use scripts/check_literary_style_gate.py --write-report plus targeted scans such as 原因在于|也就不能|就必然|换言之|也就是说|这说明|进行|具有|予以|加以|表达 意思是|原文意思是. These are candidates, not automatic defects; inspect small source-target contexts and prioritize the first pages of the book. 发现方式：在随机抽检前即把文件名/标题匹配 preface|introduction|序言|前言|导言|开篇|首章|第一章 的章节视为高影响区域。运行 scripts/check_literary_style_gate.py --write-report，并用 原因在于|也就不能|就必然|换言之|也就是说|这说明|进行|具有|予以|加以|表达 意思是|原文意思是 等扫描候选。这些只是候选，不是自动错误；必须小上下文对照源文，优先检查全书最前几页。
• Risk: Readers judge the translation before they reach the middle of the book. A weak opening can lose trust even when later chapters are accurate. Treat repeated opening style debt as P2/blocking for final release, not as a harmless P3 comment. 风险：读者会在进入正文前判断译本是否可信。开篇弱，即使后文准确，也会让读者流失。反复出现的开篇文学债务在最终发布前应按 P2/阻塞处理，不应作为无害 P3 建议。
• Fix by: First perform target-language-only rewriting: remove explanatory scaffolding, break source syntax, rebuild cadence, and choose idiomatic target-language verbs and clauses. Then compare against the source to ensure the polish did not add argument, motivation, or tone. For Gibbon-like argumentative prose, preserve balance and antithesis without turning the sentence into modern analysis; for biography or dialogue, preserve voice and character pressure instead of smoothing everything into commentary. 修复方式：先只看目标语重写，删去解释脚手架，打散源语句法，重建节奏，选择自然目标语动词和分句；再回到源文校准，确认润色没有新增论点、动机或语气。吉本式论辩散文要保留均衡和对照，不要改成现代分析说明；传记或对话要保留人物声口和叙述压力，不要全部抹成评论腔。
• Recheck: Final release requires qa/literary_style/literary_style_review.md PASS with target_only_reading_score: 5, read_aloud_awkward_sentence_count: 0, literal_explanatory_style_debt_count: 0, and high-impact sections reviewed. Random review agents must set high_impact_style_debt_count: 0 and style_debt_count: 0 for excellence PASS. 复查：最终发布必须有 qa/literary_style/literary_style_review.md PASS，并记录 、、，且高影响开篇已复审。随机评审 Agent 若要给优秀 PASS，必须写明 和 。

Reader-Facing Note and Quote Interface / 读者可见注号与外文引文接口

• Symptom: Notes or citation units expose source-side mechanics instead of a reader-stable interface: bare split markers such as 注18-1, raw bibliography such as Ludewig in Vit. Justiniani, unexplained foreign phrases such as Cqamalh edra or Dux... sedentem Imperatorem adorat, or long source quotations after an already adequate Chinese gist. 症状：注释或引文单元把源文侧机制直接暴露给读者，例如裸露的拆分注号 注18-1、未中文化的书目信息 Ludewig in Vit. Justiniani、未解释的外文短语 Cqamalh edra / Dux... sedentem Imperatorem adorat，或已经有中文大意后仍保留过长原文。
• Find by: Start with exact scans before rereading: rg -n "注[0-9]+-[0-9]+|Ludewig in Vit|Hist\\. de l'Acad|Cqamalh|Dux.*sedentem|Et ego, Deo" over chapters/final, chapters/translated, and generated XHTML. Then inspect only matched units against nearby source notes. 发现方式：先低 token 精确扫描，再读小上下文；可扫 注[0-9]+-[0-9]+|Ludewig in Vit|Hist\\. de l'Acad|Cqamalh|Dux.*sedentem|Et ego, Deo，范围限于 chapters/final、chapters/translated 和生成 XHTML。随后只复核命中单元及邻近源注。
• Risk: A note may be technically linked but still feel broken to readers. Split numbers look like corrupted references, raw bibliography or Latin/French/Greek strings interrupt the Chinese book surface, and long original quotes can overload a reader-facing audit unit. 风险：注释链接即使技术上存在，也可能在读者侧像损坏编号；未处理的书目、拉丁文、法文或希腊文会打断中文书面界面；过长原文会让单个 audit unit 失去可读性。
• Fix by: Make the interface explicit and stable. For split editor notes, use a reader label such as 补注18.1 consistently in both body references and note definitions. For foreign quotes, add immediate Chinese meaning in the same reader-facing unit, or shorten the original to an opening phrase plus bibliographic source when the Chinese gist already carries the meaning. Translate bibliographic titles enough for a Chinese reader, while preserving source identifiers only as supporting evidence. 修复方式：把接口改成明确、稳定的读者标签。拆分编注可统一写成 补注18.1，正文引用和注释定义必须同步。外文引文应在同一读者单元内立刻给出中文意思；若中文大意已经承载意义，长原文可缩为起首短语加出处。书目标题至少应中文化到读者能理解，源文标识只作为辅助证据保留。
• Production-placeholder guard: Phrases such as 外文原句略, 原文大意已译入上文, 中文接口, or bare scaffolding like 大意是 are private repair markers, not publishable prose. Scan chapters/final, chapters/translated, and generated XHTML for exact markers; replace each confirmed hit with concrete Chinese rendering and citation, or delete the orphan placeholder when neighboring translated prose already carries the source meaning.
• Finished-note interface guard: Phrases such as or often signal a draft bridge between source quotation and Chinese note prose. Scan exact sampled fragments plus ; convert confirmed hits to finished citation prose such as or , while preserving acceptable exceptions where directly introduces a necessary translation of a long source quotation. 制作占位语防护：、、，以及裸露的 脚手架，都只能作为私下修复标记，不得进入发布文本。应在 、 和生成 XHTML 中精确扫描；确认命中后改成具体中文译意和出处，若邻近译文已承载源文意义，则删除孤立占位语。

Unsupported Note Commentary / 无源依据的注释解释性加戏

• Symptom: A translated note adds reader-facing commentary about what a note “continues,” “intends to show,” or “means for the argument,” even though the source note only states evidence or citation. 症状：译文注释额外加入“这条注释延续正文”“意在说明”“换言之”等解释性评语，而源注只提供证据或书目。

• Find by: Use exact phrase scans such as 这条.*注释|延续正文|意在说明|这段.*说明|换言之|也就是说, then compare the matched note with the source. Treat these as candidates, not automatic errors, because some source notes genuinely paraphrase their own point. 发现方式：先扫 这条.*注释|延续正文|意在说明|这段.*说明|换言之|也就是说，再对照源注。它们只是候选，不是自动错误，因为源注本身有时确会复述论点。

• Risk: The translation stops being a note translation and becomes an unmarked translator gloss, which can shift tone, fidelity, and reader trust. 风险：译文从“翻译注释”滑成未标明的译者讲解，改变语气、忠实度和读者信任。

• Fix by: Remove unsupported commentary, or mark it as an authorized translator note only if the project policy explicitly permits such notes. Preserve the source note's evidence chain without adding interpretive bridges. 修复方式：删除无源依据的解释；只有项目政策明确允许译者注时，才可另行标注。保留源注证据链，不补写解释性桥段。

• Round-derived extension: Unsupported commentary can appear as whole inserted recap paragraphs, not only as one extra note sentence. If a sampled unit reads like a modern analytical bridge, compare paragraph-by-paragraph with chapters/src; delete target-only recap paragraphs unless they are explicitly authorized translator notes.

• Historical synthesis guard: In long historical chapters, target-only recap paragraphs can sound plausible because they summarize nearby source-backed material, for example framing cities or dynastic divisions as modern analytical patterns. Treat triggers such as 代表了...另一种, 征服史之外, 因此，这场..., or 这种忠诚更多依附于... as audit candidates; delete only confirmed target-only synthesis and keep source-backed historical judgment. 轮次补充：无源解释不只会是注释里的一句译者评语，也可能是整个插入的现代分析总结段。若抽样单元读起来像现代分析桥段，应按段落对照 chapters/src；没有源文对应的 target-only recap 段落应删除，除非项目明确授权译者注。

• Low-token analytical-recap audit: After one sampled target-only recap is confirmed, scan the whole book for modern interpretive trigger phrases before asking for broad reread. Useful zh-Hans candidates include 制度自救, 罗马记忆, 主权归属, 战略位置, 心理优势, 不能替代.*证据, 说明.*而不是, and 显示.*可保存. Treat them as candidates, not automatic defects: delete only when nearby source lacks the analytical conclusion, and record source-supported military, legal, or historiographical statements as exceptions. 低 token 分析总结审计：抽样确认一处 target-only 总结后，先用现代解释触发词全书扫描，再请人复核候选。简体中文候选包括 、、、、、、、。这些只作为候选，不是自动缺陷；只有邻近原文没有相应分析结论时才删除，并把有源文支撑的军事、法律或史学判断记为例外。

Historical Legal-Status Term Drift / 历史法律身份与劳役术语漂移

• Symptom: In dense historical or legal notes, a recurring institution is translated with several near-synonyms in the same passage, such as 奴役, 服役, 劳役, 服务, or 束缚, even when the source is tracking one legal status such as servitude, bondage, tenure, or a statutory labour category. 症状：历史法制或法律注释中，同一个制度概念在同段或同章内被译成多个近义词，如“奴役”“服役”“劳役”“服务”“束缚”等；但原文其实是在追踪同一法律身份或劳动制度，例如 servitude、bondage、tenure 或成文法中的劳动身份。
• Find by: Start from the glossary row for the high-risk legal term, then scan the translated chapter and nearby final chapters for sibling renderings around the same source cue. For Chinese output, exact-string scans for 奴役|服役|劳役|服务|束缚 near the same names, statutes, courts, or labour groups are usually cheaper than rereading the whole chapter first. 发现方式：先从高风险法律术语的术语表行出发，再扫描本章译稿和相邻终稿中同一 source cue 周边的近义译法。中译本可先用 奴役|服役|劳役|服务|束缚 这类精确检索，限定在同一人物、法规、法院或劳动群体附近，通常比直接重读整章更省 token。
• Risk: The reader may think the source distinguishes different legal statuses when it does not, or may miss that a mild word such as service is being used inside a coercive legal regime. This is especially damaging in slavery, serfdom, apprenticeship, penal labour, and Scottish or colonial legal contexts. 风险：读者会误以为原文区分了多个法律身份，或看不出 service 这类温和词在强制性法律制度中使用。奴隶制、农奴制、学徒身份、刑罚劳动、苏格兰法和殖民地法语境中尤其危险。
• Fix by: Choose one controlled Chinese term for the legal status in that passage, then reserve softer verbs only for ordinary employment or domestic service when the source clearly shifts sense. If the source itself juxtaposes ordinary service with legal servitude, make the contrast explicit in Chinese without inventing a new category. 修复方式：为该段法律身份选定一个受控中文术语；只有当原文明确转入普通雇佣或家内服务时，才使用较软的动词。若原文同时出现普通服务与法律奴役，应在中文中保留这种对照，但不要凭空创造新类别。
• Low-token audit: Use glossary fields, rg scans over the chapter, and small source-context windows. Record exceptions where the source deliberately varies terms or where a later sentence clearly refers to ordinary employment rather than status. 低 token 审计：使用术语表字段、本章 rg 扫描和小上下文原文窗口。若原文本身有意变换术语，或后文已清楚转为普通雇佣意义，应记录为例外。
• Recheck: After normalizing the family, rerun the full-chapter fidelity and Chinese-only readability pass. A round that repaired term drift remains non-PASS and must be followed by a fresh zero-issue recheck. 复查：术语族统一后，重跑整章忠实度与中文独立顺读检查。凡修复过术语漂移的轮次仍不能 PASS，必须追加新一轮零问题复查。

Source Compound Role Literalization / 源语复合身份词直译误导

• Symptom: A source compound such as straw-man, glass-man, chair-man, post-boy, or another hyphenated occupational or performance label is translated as if it named a modern object, creature, office, or fixed title rather than the person or act described in context. 症状：straw-man、glass-man、chair-man、post-boy 等带连字符的职业、身份或表演称呼，被按现代物件、固定头衔或字面实体直译，而没有根据上下文还原为“做某事的人 / 表演某技艺的人 / 承担某角色的人”。
• Find by: During target-only reading, flag any compound rendering that creates a surprising concrete image not supported by the scene. Then scan exact Chinese candidates such as 稻草人, 玻璃人, 椅子人, or overly modern job titles near the same source terms. 发现方式：中文独立顺读时，凡复合词译法生成了场景不支持的具体形象，都要标记。随后用精确词如“稻草人”“玻璃人”“椅子人”或过现代的职称，在同一 source term 附近做检索。
• Risk: The reader may imagine the wrong object or social role, and comic or anecdotal evidence becomes absurd in a way the source did not intend. 风险：读者会想象出错误物件或身份，喜剧性、轶事性证据会变成原文并未打算的荒诞。
• Fix by: Rebuild the compound into a target-language role phrase anchored to the immediate action, such as 耍稻草者的灵巧表演 for a performer balancing a straw on his nose, rather than 稻草人的灵巧. 修复方式：根据近旁动作把复合词改写成目标语角色短语，例如鼻上平衡稻草的表演者，应写作“耍稻草者的灵巧表演”，而不是“稻草人的灵巧”。
• Recheck: Reread the whole anecdote in target language first, then compare the exact source sentence to confirm the repair does not add a new explanation beyond the scene. 复查：先只读目标语整则轶事，再对照源句，确认修复没有越出场景添加解释。

Historical Semantic Downgrading / 历史语义降格

• Symptom: A historically strong praise word or moral term is translated with its weaker modern sense, such as treating eighteenth-century respectable as merely 体面的, 还算不错的, or middle-class social respectability when the passage means 可敬的, 值得尊重的, or 庄严重要的. 症状：历史语境中很强的赞词或道德词，被按现代弱义翻译。例如十八世纪 respectable 在原文中表示“可敬的、值得尊重的、庄严重要的”，却被译成较弱的“体面的”“还算不错的”或中产社会身份感。
• Find by: Flag source words that the note itself defines, contrasts with later usage, or illustrates through many examples. Search the translated passage for modern downgraded renderings and compare each example sentence rather than relying on the dictionary's most familiar current meaning. 发现方式：凡原文注释亲自定义某词、对比其后世用法，或连举多例说明语义，都要标为高风险。检索译文中的现代弱化译法，并逐例对照例句，不要只靠现代最常见词义。
• Risk: The reader loses the historical argument of the note and may misunderstand why the editor quotes many examples. Semantic history notes become flat word glosses rather than evidence. 风险：读者会丢失注释中的历史语义论证，也看不出编者为何连举多例。语义史注释会变成扁平词义解释，而不是证据链。
• Fix by: Keep the source word visible when it is under discussion, choose one historically appropriate target rendering, and repeat that rendering consistently through the examples unless a quoted context requires a deliberate variant. 修复方式：当源词本身是讨论对象时保留源词；选择一个符合历史语义的中文译法，并在各例中一致使用，除非某条引文语境明确要求有意变体。
• Recheck: Do a target-only reading of the whole semantic note, then verify that every example still supports the same historical claim. 复查：先只读中文整条语义史注释，再确认每个例句仍共同支撑同一个历史语义判断。

Short Cross-Reference Note Coverage Loss / 短交叉参照注覆盖不足

• Symptom: Many source notes are short cross-references such as See ante, See post, or a bare title/page citation. A faithful but too-short Chinese rendering can fall below paragraph-coverage gates or look like a fragment in reader-facing notes. 症状：原文大量注释只是 See ante、See post 或裸标题/页码参照。中文若只机械译成“见前文第某页”，虽然忠实，却可能低于段落覆盖门槛，或在读者可见注释中显得像残片。
• Find by: Compare reader paragraph block counts after translation and scan for note blocks shorter than the source's function requires. Pay special attention to note-heavy units where many consecutive notes are cross-references. 发现方式：译后比较 reader paragraph block 数量，并扫描短到不能承担原文功能的注释块。大量连续交叉参照注的单元尤其高风险。
• Risk: The chapter can structurally under-cover the source even when no note number is missing, and readers get a choppy note apparatus with little contextual help. 风险：即使注号没有缺失，章节仍可能在结构上低覆盖源文；读者也会看到碎片化、缺少上下文帮助的注释系统。
• Fix by: Expand only enough to state the cross-reference function, such as 此处为同一话题在前文的交叉参照, 后文该日还有相关补充材料, or 出处用于核对正文引句. Do not invent substantive facts not present in the source. 修复方式：只扩到能说明交叉参照功能即可，例如“此处为同一话题在前文的交叉参照”“后文该日还有相关补充材料”“出处用于核对正文引句”。不得凭空添加源文没有的事实内容。
• Low-token audit: Use metrics first (reader_blocks and blank-line blocks), then inspect only the short note blocks and their source counterparts. 低 token 审计：先看 metrics（reader_blocks 与空行块），再只检查短注块及其源文对应块。
• Recheck: A coverage repair is a fix round, not a PASS round. Rerun full-chapter parity, residue scan, and target-only note readability before allowing the unit forward. 复查：覆盖率修复属于修复轮，不能直接 PASS。必须重跑整章结构、残留扫描和中文注释顺读，才能放行。

Historical Names and Currency Left in Source Form / 历史人名与币名裸留源语

• Symptom: A literary translation keeps ordinary source-language names, currency units, or social terms in Latin letters inside continuous target-language narration, such as Zaide, blanca, maravedí, or real, even though the passage is not discussing source-language form. 症状：文学译文在连续目标语叙事中裸留普通源语人名、币名或社会词，例如 Zaide、blanca、maravedí、real，但该处并不是在讨论源语词形。
• Find by: Start from random-sample hits, then scan final chapters, translated drafts, generated EPUB XHTML, and glossary forbidden renderings with exact strings and rg --no-ignore when ordinary directory scans are affected by ignore rules. 发现方式：先从随机抽样命中出发，再用精确字符串扫描终稿、译稿、生成 XHTML 和术语表禁用写法；若普通目录扫描受 ignore 规则影响，使用 rg --no-ignore。
• Risk: Readers are forced to decode unexplained source words, and the prose feels unfinished. Small currency words are especially risky because they carry poverty, price, and social-status evidence in the scene. 风险：读者被迫自行解码未说明的源语词，译文呈现未完成感。小额币名尤其危险，因为它们承担贫困、价格和阶层证据。
• Fix by: Translate or transliterate into target-language form and add a short class word when needed, such as 扎伊德, 布兰卡小钱, 马拉维迪铜钱, or 雷亚尔银币. Keep the source form in the glossary or a concise note only when useful; do not leave it bare in ordinary narrative. 修复方式：译成或音译成目标语形式，并在需要时加简短类别词，例如“扎伊德”“布兰卡小钱”“马拉维迪铜钱”“雷亚尔银币”。源语形式可留在术语表或简短说明中，不要裸留在普通叙事正文。
• Low-token audit: For Spanish-to-Chinese work, scan likely residue with rg --no-ignore -n "Zaide|blanca|maraved|real|reales" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB glossary, then classify frontmatter source-title/source-evidence mentions as documented exceptions. 低 token 审计：西译中可用 rg --no-ignore -n "Zaide|blanca|maraved|real|reales" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB glossary 扫描候选，再把前置页原名、来源证据等有记录的源语提及列为例外。
• Post-replacement spacing and measure-word audit: After converting bare source forms to target-language forms, scan for half-repaired Chinese such as 扎伊德 , 布兰卡小钱, 马拉维迪铜钱, 雷亚尔银币, and source-like quantifiers such as 个 布兰卡小钱 or 三十 马拉维迪铜钱. Repair them into target prose units such as 扎伊德的, 半枚布兰卡小钱, 一枚雷亚尔银币, and 三十枚马拉维迪铜钱. 替换后空格与量词审计：把裸露源语改成目标语形式后，还要扫描半修复中文，例如 扎伊德 、 布兰卡小钱、、，以及 、 这类源语式量词。应修成目标语叙事单位，如“扎伊德的”“半枚布兰卡小钱”“一枚雷亚尔银币”“三十枚马拉维迪铜钱”。

Gate-Passing Style Debt / 过线但不优秀的顺读债务

• Symptom: A review says the passage is readable, understandable, or faithful, but also repeatedly notes stiffness, density, abstract wording, explanatory prose, source-language syntax residue, or "reads like analysis notes." Scores in the 80s are being treated as final excellence even though the prose is only above the hard failure line. 症状：评审说译文“可读、能懂、忠实”，但反复出现较硬、偏密、略抽象、解释化、源语句法残留、像分析笔记等描述。80 多分被误当成最终优秀，其实只是高于硬失败线。
• Find by: Random-review score distributions with many 80-91 rows, review keywords such as 可读, 略硬, 较硬, 偏密, 略抽象, 解释化, 翻译腔, 英式分析腔, and sample reasons that praise comprehension while withholding natural target-language quality. 发现方式：查看随机评审分布中 80-91 分占比过高的行；扫描评审关键词如 可读、略硬、较硬、偏密、略抽象、解释化、翻译腔、英式分析腔；重点看那些“能懂但不像自然目标语书”的理由。
• Risk: The book passes the hard gate but remains merely serviceable. Later samples keep rediscovering the same polish debt, and random spot-check becomes the main polishing engine instead of a final verification gate. 风险：书稿通过硬门槛，却只是勉强可用。后续抽样会反复发现同类润色债务，随机抽检被迫承担主要精修工作，而不是最终验证。
• Fix by: Route the family back to target-language independent reading and source-supported sentence rebuilding. For zh-Hans, treat 80-87 as rework candidates, 88-91 as not-yet-excellent, and require final artifact reviews to reach average_score >= 92 and lowest_score >= 88 with every sample scored. Do not solve it by raising summary scores; improve the prose or keep the round from final PASS. 修复方式：把该问题族回退到目标语独立阅读和有原文依据的句法重组。简体中文中，80-87 应作为返修候选，88-91 仍未达优秀；最终产物评审必须达到 average_score >= 92、lowest_score >= 88 且每个样本逐项评分。不要靠提高总评分解决；要修正文风，或阻止该轮作为最终 PASS。
• Low-token audit: Scan review files first with rg -n "可读|略硬|较硬|偏密|略抽象|解释化|翻译腔|英式分析腔|分析稍密|较机械|稍显" reviews/random_spotcheck, then inspect only the cited sample units and nearby source context before book-wide pattern searches. 低 token 审计：先扫评审文件：rg -n "可读|略硬|较硬|偏密|略抽象|解释化|翻译腔|英式分析腔|分析稍密|较机械|稍显" reviews/random_spotcheck，再只检查被点名样本及邻近原文，然后按确认的问题族扩大全书候选检索。
• Fiction-dialogue refinement guard: In novels, random samples often expose non-blocking but non-publishable stiffness through child speech, domestic banter, and emotional narration rather than through explicit factual mistakes. When a sample phrase is semantically correct but reads like a literal shell such as 正好吻合, 这是最好的地方, or , classify it under this family, audit the whole book with exact-string or near-string searches for the same residue type, and rebuild into target-language novel diction instead of patching only the sampled line. 小说对白精修防护：小说抽样里，很多不过线级而未达出版级的问题，不是事实错，而是孩童口吻、家常对白、情绪叙述里残留的半直译硬壳。若样本出现语义没错、但读感像直译外壳的句子，如“正好吻合”“这是最好的地方”“深而急地思考着”，应归入本问题族；随后用精确残留词或近似残留词做全书扫描，不得只修样本句，必须整体重写为目标语小说腔。

Short-Sentence Fragmentation / 短句切断

• Symptom: The translation breaks a coherent source movement into clipped fragments, making the prose read like notes, commands, or a plot outline. 症状：译文把连续动作或论述切成碎短句，读起来像提纲、指令或剧情摘要。
• Find by: Chinese-only read-aloud pass, high punctuation density, repeated comma-only action chains, or samples that feel breathless without source pressure. 发现方式：中文独立朗读、高标点密度、连续动作清单，或原文并无强压迫感但译文读起来喘不过气。
• Fix by: Rebuild sentence groups with natural connectors, subject recovery, rhythm variation, and source-supported pacing; do not flatten tension. 修复方式：用自然连接、主语恢复、长短变化和原文允许的节奏重组句群；不要把紧张感改平。
• Recheck: Read the revised paragraph aloud and compare with the source to ensure no action, order, or tone was changed. 复查：朗读修订段，并对照原文确认动作、顺序和语气没有被改错。

Metaphor Collision / 比喻自撞

• Symptom: A translated image contains mixed vehicles, incompatible physical logic, or extra imagery that sounds vivid but no longer follows the source. 症状：译文意象混用、物理逻辑互撞，或新增了好看但原文没有支撑的比喻。
• Find by: Reviewing high-image passages, chapter openings/endings, emotional turns, and any phrase whose appeal depends on an added object, sound, motion, or psychology. 发现方式：检查高画面段、开头结尾、情绪转折，以及任何魅力依赖新增物体、声音、动作或心理判断的表达。
• Fix by: Preserve the source effect rather than the source surface; remove unsupported added imagery and choose a target-language image grounded in source sensation, action, spatial relation, or symbol. 修复方式：保留原文效果，不机械保留表面；删除无依据新增意象，改用扎根于原文体感、动作、空间关系或象征功能的目标语表达。
• Craft-analysis direction guard: When a source spatial word is metaphorical or evaluative, do not turn it into a concrete room, body, or route unless the scene is literally spatial. For example, takes them to the basement in a value descent should be 带到谷底 or 跌到最底层, not 带到地下室. 写作分析方位防护：源语空间词若承担比喻或评价功能，不要把它译成真实房间、身体或路线，除非场景确实在写空间动作。例如价值下坠中的 takes them to the basement 应译为“带到谷底”或“跌到最底层”，不能写成“带到地下室”。
• Dialogue/craft-book guard: Do not intensify light source metaphors, compressed image syntax, or idioms into new physical, medical, or sound effects. flaws fester in the subtext should not become 缺陷在潜台词中化脓; dribbling basketball should not add clock sounds such as 滴答乱响; fire off words should normally become 说出狠话 or another speech action, not 发射词语; a compressed image sequence such as her shadow slashed rope furled sails... should not become a false action like 影子划开缆绳. 对白/技法书防护：不要把原文轻比喻、压缩意象句法或惯用表达强化成新的物理、病理或声音效果。flaws fester in the subtext 不应译成“缺陷在潜台词中化脓”；dribbling basketball 不应新增“滴答乱响”这类钟表声；fire off words 通常应处理成“说出狠话”等话语行动，不要写成“发射词语”；her shadow slashed rope furled sails... 这类压缩意象序列，不应误析成“影子划开缆绳”这类虚假动作。
• Conceptual-layer guard: In craft theory, source images such as sphere, level, inside, revolves, churns, or roils often teach a conceptual relation, not literal anatomy or mechanics. Preserve the model as a readable target-language relation (三层相套的内在空间, 未言这一层, 最深处, 暗自流转, 翻涌) and avoid false concrete phrases such as or . 概念层级防护：写作理论中的 、、、、、 常是在教学上建立概念关系，不是在描写真实身体结构或机械运动。应转成目标语可读的关系模型（如“三层相套的内在空间”“未言这一层”“最深处”“暗自流转”“翻涌”），避免写成“第二层球体，未说之物，在人物内部旋转”或“不可说之物这一层球体”这类假实体。

Concept Hard-Shell, Entityification, and Psychology Jargon / 概念硬壳、实体化与心理学滥词

• Symptom: A craft concept becomes a rigid target-language term, pseudo-psychology label, physical object, or mechanical spatial model. Typical zh-Hans symptoms include 真实人物 for technical true character, 潜意识心灵, 潜意识自我, 潜意识冲动, 进入人物的潜意识, 巨大领域, 球体, 同心层, and anatomical 内部/内里 where the source is only describing conceptual relation. 症状：写作技法概念被译成目标语里的硬壳术语、伪心理学标签、物理实体或机械空间模型。简体中文常见表现包括把术语 true character 译成“真实人物”，把内在动力写成“潜意识心灵”“潜意识自我”“潜意识冲动”“进入人物的潜意识”，把抽象 realm/sphere/level 写成“巨大领域”“球体”“同心层”，或在非实体语境里滥用“内部/内里”。
• Risk: Readers infer the wrong category: literal real people instead of character nature, pop psychology instead of craft analysis, or physical balls/rooms/body interiors instead of layers of dramatic meaning. This makes the prose sound comic, mechanical, and low-trust even when the source facts are present. 风险：读者会误判概念类别：把人物本性误读成现实真人，把技法分析误读成流行心理学，把戏剧意义层次误读成球体、房间或身体内部。即使事实没丢，译文也会显得滑稽、机械、可信度低。
• Fix by: Rebuild the Chinese relation instead of preserving the source noun shell. For true character, prefer 人物本性 as the terminology anchor, but use 本性, 本性的揭示, 真实是谁, or 到底是什么样的人 when the sentence would otherwise sound rigid; reserve 真实人物 for literal real people and avoid 真实人性 unless the source really means universal human nature. In non-psychology books, do not treat 潜意识 as an acceptable default for subconscious/unconscious; in craft prose, it usually creates a false psychology register. Prefer context-specific forms such as 意识之下, 未被意识到, 深层, 心智深处, 暗流, 深层需求, or 意识之下的欲望. Only a book that is explicitly discussing psychology as psychology should justify any clinical/technical psychology term in a local note. For sphere/realm/level/inside, prefer 层面, 内在, 层层深处, 这一层, 暗自流转, or another readable relation rather than a literal object or space. 修复方式：重建中文关系，不保留源语名词壳。true character 作技法术语时以“人物本性”为锚点；若句子读起来发硬，可按语境改成“本性”“本性的揭示”“真实是谁”“到底是什么样的人”。源文确指现实真人时才用“真实人物”；除非原文确指普遍人性，否则不要用“真实人性”。非心理学书中，不要把“潜意识”当作 的可接受默认译法；在写作技法散文里，它通常会制造错误的心理学腔。优先按上下文译成“意识之下”“未被意识到”“深层”“心智深处”“暗流”“深层需求”“意识之下的欲望”等。只有一本书明确是在把心理学当作心理学讨论时，才应在本书说明中为临床/技术心理学术语作个案记录。 宜译成“层面”“内在”“层层深处”“这一层”“暗自流转”等可读关系，不要硬变成物体或空间。

Enumerative Punctuation Drag / 排比标点拖拽

• Symptom: Source commas, semicolons, dashes, or list rhythm are mechanically mapped into target-language punctuation, producing stiff rows of clauses. 症状：把原文逗号、分号、破折号或列举节奏机械搬进目标语，形成僵硬的并列从句队列。
• Find by: Scanning for repeated semicolons, dash chains, parallel clauses with no rhetorical payoff, or chapter titles that preserve printed table-of-contents punctuation. 发现方式：扫描重复分号、破折号链、没有修辞收益的排比从句，以及保留纸书目录标点的章节标题。
• Fix by: Convert lists into natural target-language hierarchy: sentence groups, short clauses, run-in explanations, subtitles, or true tables when needed. 修复方式：按目标语习惯重组层级：句群、短分句、段内说明、副标题，必要时改为真实表格。
• Recheck: Confirm the punctuation now reflects target-language reading logic, not source punctuation inertia. 复查：确认标点服务目标语阅读逻辑，而不是原文标点惯性。
• zh-Hans hard-gate note: In Simplified Chinese publication text, semicolons are rare. Audit them with rg "；" across chapters/final/, frontmatter/, and metadata/; most hits should be rewritten as sentence breaks, commas, or re-layered clauses unless there is a true high-level parallel structure. 简体中文硬门禁补记：出版级简体中文里，分号应极少出现。先用 rg "；" 扫描 chapters/final/、frontmatter/ 和 metadata/；除非确有高层并列关系，否则大多数命中都应改写为断句、逗号或重组层级。
• Paper-like ordinal guard: In reader-facing prose, paragraph-opening 第一，第二，第三 often reads like a paper outline rather than a book. Keep explicit numbering only for true step lists, tables, notes, legal/scientific hierarchy, or places where the source argument depends on numbered order. In ordinary explanatory prose, recast as natural transitions (先看..., 再看..., 最后...) or topic leads (形容词。, 背景故事。). 论文式序号防护：面向读者的正文里，段首 第一，第二，第三 很容易读成论文提纲，而不是一本书。只有真正的步骤清单、表格、注释、法律/科学层级，或原文论证依赖编号顺序时才保留显性编号。普通解释性正文应改成自然过渡（如“先看……”“再看……”“最后……”）或主题句（如“形容词。”“背景故事。”）。
• Low-token audit: For zh-Hans prose, scan paragraph starts with rg -n "^(第一|第二|第三|第四|第五|第六|第七|第八|第九|第十)[，、]" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB, then classify notes/true step lists as exceptions and rewrite confirmed body-prose hits. 低 token 审计：简体中文正文可先扫段首序号：rg -n "^(第一|第二|第三|第四|第五|第六|第七|第八|第九|第十)[，、]" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB，再把注释/真实步骤清单列为例外，确认正文提纲腔后改写。

Standalone Quote Lost Source Interface / 独立引句丢失原文接口

• Symptom: In books that analyze dialogue, rhetoric, or famous literary/cinematic lines, the translation keeps only the Chinese rendering of a standalone quote block, so readers cannot inspect the source wording that is itself under discussion. 症状：在讨论对白、修辞或经典台词的书里，独立引句块只保留中文译文，不给原文接口，导致读者无法直接核对正被分析的原句声调与措辞。
• Find by: Scan for standalone quotation blocks, attribution lines, repeated em-dash quote attributions, or isolated dialogue examples first with rg, then verify against nearby source context. Focus on canonical lines, famous citations, and analyzed dialogue snippets, not ordinary prose paragraphs. 发现方式：先用 rg 扫描独立引句块、署名行、反复出现的破折号式引句归属或孤立台词示例，再对照邻近原文复核。重点看经典名句、著名引文和被分析的台词片段，不要把普通正文都拉进来。
• Fix by: Pair the original source line or short passage with the translation in reader-visible order, usually original first and translation second. Keep the bilingual pairing limited to places where the exact wording matters to the argument; do not bloat ordinary narrative prose into parallel text.

Source-Language Quote Without Target Interface / 源语长引文缺目标语接口

• Symptom: A reader-facing note or quoted evidence preserves a long Latin, French, Greek-transliterated, or other source-language passage without a usable target-language rendering, or inserts a Chinese citation title/page reference into the middle of the source sentence. The target reader sees evidence but cannot read what the evidence says. 症状：面向读者的注释或证据引文保留较长拉丁文、法文、希腊转写或其他源语段落，却没有可用的目标语译文/大意，或把中文书名、页码、出处插入源语句子中间。目标语读者看见证据，却读不懂证据究竟说了什么。
• Find by: Start from random-sample source-language interface hits, then scan final chapters for long Latin-script runs, diacritics, Greek transliteration, and mixed Chinese/source-language citation breakage such as 中文?Latin or Latin?中文. Review candidates by note role: short names, titles, and bibliographic abbreviations may be acceptable; long quoted evidence needs a target-language interface. 发现方式：先从随机抽样发现的源语接口问题出发，再扫描终稿中较长拉丁字母串、变音字母、希腊转写，以及 中文?Latin、Latin?中文 这类中外文出处破损。按注释功能分类：短人名、书名、文献缩写可以保留；承担证据作用的长引文需要目标语接口。
• Risk: The note becomes a source-language wall inside a translated book. Readers cannot evaluate the quotation, and broken citation insertion can make the foreign sentence itself unreadable. 风险：注释在译本中变成源语墙。读者无法判断引文如何支持正文；出处插入破损时，源语句子本身也会不可读。
• Fix by: Preserve the source quote when exact wording matters, but add a concise target-language rendering or 引文大意 immediately next to it. If a citation has been inserted mid-sentence, move the citation outside the quote and restore the quote's continuity before adding the target-language interface. 修复方式：确需保留原文措辞时可以保留源语引文，但必须在近旁补出简洁目标语译文或“引文大意”。若出处被插入句中，应先把出处移出引文、恢复引文连续性，再补目标语接口。
• Low-token audit: Use a machine scan for long Latin-script passages and mixed punctuation breakage, then repair confirmed evidence quotes rather than ordinary bibliographic fragments. Keep an audit report with candidate count, repaired count, and justified exceptions. 低 token 审计：先用机器扫描长拉丁字母段和中外文标点/出处破损，再修复确认承担证据功能的引文，不把普通书目片段全量改写。审计报告需记录候选数、修复数和合理例外。
• Recheck: Rebuild EPUB and ask fresh random-review agents to inspect note/caption strata; stale failed rounds cannot count after the repair. 复查：重建 EPUB，并让新 seed 随机评审继续检查注释/说明层；修复前失败轮次不得计入通过证据。 修复方式：把原句或短原段与译文成对呈现，通常原文在前、译文在后。双语配对只用于“原句措辞本身就是论证对象”的位置，不要把普通叙述正文膨胀成对照文本。
• Retention boundary: Do not keep source text merely because it is dialogue. Ordinary scene transcripts, greetings, filler, and plot-functional lines should normally be translated into the target language only. Keep the source line only when it is a famous/canonical quotation, a named literary/cinematic line whose wording is being analyzed, or the local argument depends on source-language form, sound, word length, pun, or syntax. 保留边界：不要因为它是对白就自动保留源文。普通场景转写、寒暄、填充语和只推动情节的台词，通常应只给目标语译文。只有名言/经典引文、明确被分析措辞的文学/影视台词，或局部论证依赖源语词形、声韵、词长、双关、句法时，才保留源句。
• Ordinary-dialogue block guard: Even when a craft paragraph briefly needs the source wording to discuss word length, repetition, or cadence, do not promote ordinary fragmentary dialogue into standalone bilingual quote blocks. Prefer target-language prose, or a minimal inline source cue such as a single word being analyzed; reserve full source block plus target block for canonical quotes or passages whose exact wording is the reader-facing evidence. 普通对白块防护：即使技法段落需要短暂提到源语措辞来说明词长、重复或节奏，也不要把普通碎对白提升成独立双语引文块。优先使用目标语正文，或只保留正在分析的最小内联源语提示；完整“源语块在前、目标语块在后”只用于经典引文，或精确措辞本身就是读者可见证据的段落。

Reader-Facing Note Marker Leak / 读者可见注号裸露

• Symptom: Chapter body text exposes raw trailing digits or source-authoring note markers instead of a readable note interface, so random-sample review catches naked 3 / 9 endings or similar residue in reader-facing text. 症状：章节正文把尾随数字或源稿注号原样暴露出来，没有形成可读的注释接口，于是随机抽检会抓到裸露的 3 / 9 之类尾注残留。
• Find by: Run rg or equivalent scans over chapters/final/ for sentence-final digits, then compare with note inventory and built XHTML. Check whether the source markdown itself is readable, not only whether the EPUB builder later repairs it. 发现方式：先对 chapters/final/ 用 rg 或等效扫描找句末数字，再对照注释清单和生成 XHTML。不要只看 EPUB 构建后有没有自动补好，还要检查源 markdown 本身是否可读。
• Low-token audit: Start with rg -n "。\\d+\\s|，\\d+\\s|？\\d+\\s|！\\d+\\s|[\\u4e00-\\u9fff]\\d+\\s" chapters/final chapters/translated, then classify hits as note markers, dates, years, measurements, list numbering, or notes-section entries before editing. 低 token 审计：先用 rg -n "。\\d+\\s|，\\d+\\s|？\\d+\\s|！\\d+\\s|[\\u4e00-\\u9fff]\\d+\\s" chapters/final chapters/translated 收集候选，再把命中区分为注号、日期、年份、计量、列表编号或 notes 章节条目，确认后再编辑。
• Fix by: Replace raw note digits with a controlled note-marker convention recognized by the build pipeline. If random samples or chapter controls treat source Markdown as reader-facing audit units, do not store production noteref markers in chapters/final/; put the injection locations in a non-reader-facing metadata map or equivalent build layer, let the EPUB builder inject noterefs in memory, and keep source Markdown clean. Use a visible note marker only when the review template explicitly accepts it. 修复方式：把裸数字改成构建流水线识别的受控注号约定。如果随机抽检或章节控制把源 Markdown 当作读者可见审计单元，不要把制作性 noteref 标记写进 chapters/final/；应把注号注入位置放入非读者可见的 metadata 映射或等效构建层，由 EPUB 构建器在内存中注入 noteref，并保持源 Markdown 干净。只有评审模板明确接受时，才使用读者可见注号。
• Low-token audit: Search source chapters and built XHTML separately, for example rg -n "<!--noteref:|〔注|见注|&lt;!--noteref" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB. Source chapters should have zero production markers; generated XHTML should have resolved <sup epub:type="noteref"> links and no escaped comments. 低 token 审计：分别扫描源章节和生成 XHTML，例如 rg -n "<!--noteref:|〔注|见注|&lt;!--noteref" chapters/final chapters/translated output/epub_work/EPUB。源章节应没有制作标记；生成 XHTML 应呈现已解析的 <sup epub:type="noteref"> 链接，不能残留转义注释。
• Metadata-map guard: After any body sentence carrying a note is rewritten, run a metadata-map stale-entry diagnostic before rebuilding. Compare the number of intended metadata note markers with generated XHTML class="noteref" count; a mismatch means a rewritten sentence no longer matches the map or a source raw digit still lacks a metadata injection point. metadata 映射防护：任何带注释的正文句被改写后，重建前必须运行 metadata 映射失效诊断。把 metadata 中预期注号 marker 数与生成 XHTML 的 数量对账；若不一致，说明改写后的句子已无法匹配映射，或仍有源层裸数字缺少注入位置。

Unclear Pronoun Reference / 代词指代不清

• Symptom: A pronoun, demonstrative, or ellipsis that was clear in the source becomes ambiguous after translation, especially in dialogue, multi-character scenes, legal argument, or technical explanation. 症状：原文清楚的代词、指示词或省略，在译文中变得含混；常见于对话、多人物场景、法律论证和技术说明。
• Find by: Reading only the translated paragraph and asking who/what each pronoun points to; then compare with the source chain. 发现方式：只读译文段落，逐个确认“他/她/它/这/那”指向谁或什么，再对照原文链条。
• Fix by: Replace selected pronouns with names, roles, objects, or repeated terms when Chinese clarity requires it; avoid over-repetition that damages style. 修复方式：中文清晰度需要时，把部分代词换成人名、身份、物体或术语；同时避免重复过密损伤文风。
• Recheck: Confirm that a reader unfamiliar with the source can follow the relation without guessing. 复查：确认没读过原文的读者也能不猜测地跟上关系。

Source-Syntax Residue / 源语句法残留

• Symptom: The target text is understandable but still follows source clause order, modifier stacking, passive structure, or abstract noun scaffolding. 症状：译文能懂，但仍保留源语从句顺序、修饰堆叠、被动结构或抽象名词支架。
• Find by: Chinese-only reading, long-sentence breath checks, and source comparison for clauses that could be reordered without changing meaning. 发现方式：中文独立阅读、长句换气检查，并对照原文找出可重排而不改义的从句。
• Special check: Audit dangling contrastive or connective fragments such as isolated "相比之下。", "然而。", or similar source-led hinges. Do not stop at punctuation repair; make sure the comparison or turn has a concrete landing point in the target-language clause. 特别检查：额外审计被截成残句的转折/连接语，例如孤立的“相比之下。”、“然而。”等源语驱动铰链。不要只修标点，要确认比较或转折关系已经在目标语主句里真正落地。
• Special check: Preserve epistemic and reception stance in evaluative closures. When the source says an idea was "taken as" a paradigm, was "widely held," or that a conclusion is "not surprising," do not compress it into an unqualified target-language praise; retain who holds the view, the evidential distance, and the surprise/non-surprise relation. Audit source markers such as not surprising, unsurprisingly, no doubt, paradigm, and clearly against target candidates such as 被视为, 不足为奇, 毫无疑问, 范例, and 显然, then record technical/logical uses as exceptions. 特别检查：保留评价收束句中的认识立场和受述范围。原文说某观点“被视为”范例、被“广泛认为”成立，或说某结论“并不令人意外”时，不要把它压成无条件的赞美；要保留是谁这样看、证据距离以及意外/不意外关系。可用 not surprising、unsurprisingly、no doubt、paradigm、clearly 对照 被视为、不足为奇、毫无疑问、范例、显然 扫描，并把技术/逻辑中的有效用法记录为合理例外。
• Special check: Audit source inserted examples such as "for instance" or "for example" that land mid-clause as awkward target-language fragments, for example "但她不能比如捂住肚子". In Chinese, move the example into a natural means phrase such as "不能通过……之类的动作", "不能以……这种方式", or a full sentence with "比如说". 特别检查：审计源语插入式例子，例如 "for instance"、"for example" 被硬塞进目标语分句中部，形成“但她不能比如捂住肚子”这类怪句。中文应把例子改成自然手段表达，例如“不能通过……之类的动作”“不能以……这种方式”，或另起完整的“比如说”句式。
• Special check: Audit English balance idioms in craft-analysis prose, especially throw(s) ... out of balance, life is thrown out of balance, and put life back in balance. Do not preserve the source physical verb as 把早晨/生活抛出平衡; write the target relation directly, such as 打乱了这个早晨的平衡, 让生活失衡, , or . In the same pass, audit emotional mood labels such as , , and ; avoid face/body pseudo-literals like , and use context-supported Chinese such as , , , or a more specific hidden pain/fear explanation. 特别检查：审计写作分析中的英语平衡习语，尤其是 、、。不要把源语物理动词保留成“把早晨/生活抛出平衡”；应直接写目标语关系，例如“打乱了这个早晨的平衡”“让生活失衡”“打乱生活平衡”或“恢复生活平衡”。同轮审计 、、 等情绪标签，避免“一脸酸气”这类脸部/身体伪直译，应按上下文写成“满心不快”“阴沉烦躁”“心情不佳”，或更具体的隐秘痛苦/恐惧说明。