Review the applied use of corpus tools and textual analysis — keyword, concordance, and collocation analysis, description of existing translations, and tracking of textual devices (theme dynamics, clausal and iconic linkage, deixis) — set against the commission's purpose and risk level. Use when concrete tooling or textual-device tracking is under review; corpus design choices go to corpus-design-and-methodology.
Review Chinese target prose for Europeanized distortion — defending concision, flexible syntax, and rhythmic force, matching connectors to the actual relation, and preferring concrete subjects over abstract nominalizations. Use when a Chinese target text's Europeanization is under review; translationese used as a quality proxy goes to translation-universals-and-the-third-code.
Review how cognitive and contrastive-pragmatic evidence is used — admitting process research only where it clarifies comprehension or transfer, treating verbal reports and neuroimaging as limited evidence, and triangulating pragmatic claims across data types. Use when a cognition or contrastive-pragmatics claim underlies a quality judgement; the descriptive-norm reconstruction it informs goes to descriptive-studies-and-translational-norms.
Review whether a corpus-based translation study is built to answer its question — corpus type (parallel / monolingual comparable / multilingual comparable), comparability, metadata, alignment, and frequency normalisation — before any difference is attributed to translation status. Use when a corpus design or corpus statistic is under review; universals interpretation goes to translation-universals-and-the-third-code, applied tooling to applied-corpus-tools-and-textual-devices.
Review quality where culture, ideology, English-as-a-lingua-franca, and globalization bear on the choices, grounding any power or ideology critique in detailed linguistic form and function first. Use when a cultural-filter, ideology, or ELF/globalization claim is under review; the overt/covert filtering judgement goes to overt-covert-translation-and-equivalence.
Review whether translated text is studied descriptively and target-orientedly — a reproducible method, norms reconstructed from recurrent corpus regularities, and an individual pattern attributed to a translator only after author style, source-language, and sociolect are ruled out. Use when a descriptive method or a translational-norm claim needs review; universals go to translation-universals-and-the-third-code.
Review the discipline of the evaluation itself — overt errors classified separately from covert dimensional mismatches, impressionistic criteria rejected unless made operationally checkable, and evidence strength preserved. Use when evaluation criteria, an error typology, or a confidence claim need checking; the source-profile basis they weight against goes to overt-covert-translation-and-equivalence.
Review quality where genre and audience accessibility govern the choices — connecting a text to its genre class and checking children's and stage texts against the function they must serve, with accessibility claims backed by quantifiable textual features. Use when a genre-fit or accessibility claim needs review; register detail goes to register-field-tenor-mode-analysis.