Separate language accuracy from market relevance.
Translation carries meaning into another language. Localization asks whether the resulting message, examples and product presentation make sense for the intended audience and context. A sentence can be grammatically sound while describing the wrong use case.
For a fictional receipt app, “keep purchase records” might be accurate source copy. The local brief still needs to establish which users need those records, what they call the task and which features support it. Do not replace that research with stereotypes about a country.
Explain the job of each field.
A title, a short description and a screenshot caption have different responsibilities. Tell the reviewer what the text needs to communicate and what nearby content already says. A list of isolated strings hides the argument the visitor will actually see.
Use the screenshot copy guide to assign each caption a role. Include field constraints in the brief and verify the final version against the relevant store requirements, rather than assuming the source length will survive.
Keep a glossary with reasons.
Document brand terms, feature names and concepts that need consistent treatment. Include approved wording, context and any product constraints. A glossary should explain a decision, not simply forbid alternatives without a reason.
Allow reviewers to flag ambiguous source language. If two competent reviewers interpret a promise differently, the original may need rewriting. Resolve the product meaning before debating which translation sounds smoother.
Review the rendered experience.
Language work should be reviewed inside its final layout. Line breaks, UI labels and a caption’s relationship to the screenshot can change comprehension. A spreadsheet approval does not prove that a small store image is readable.
Follow creative adaptation with a separate in-context review. Ask whether the claim is clear, natural and supported by the pictured product. Those are different questions from spelling and grammar.
Scope automation as a draft, not an approver.
Automated drafting can produce candidate wording for review, but the draft does not confirm local intent or product accuracy. Give a competent language reviewer context and a route to ask product questions. Record which version was approved.
The QA process should include both linguistic and product checks. A final sign-off needs an accountable person; a fluent-looking output is not a record of verification.
