Nordic NuanceFluent is not finished
A fluent translation is easy to trust. That is one reason it needs to be checked against something other than its own fluency.
Take a simple hypothetical example:
Constructed QA example; not a measured result from an AI system
Source: “You can cancel at any time.”
Candidate: “Dit abonnement bliver automatisk opsagt.”
The Danish sentence reads naturally. It also changes the meaning: an option available to the reader has become an automatic event. Reading the Danish in isolation would not reveal the source mismatch.
AI-generated text, machine translation and human translation can all require this kind of check. The useful question is what has been verified, and against which reference.
Give each review pass a purpose
First compare meaning: actions, conditions, omissions, numbers and negation. Then check terminology, consistency and tone. Finally, inspect the text where it will be used, including placeholders, line breaks and interface constraints.
The depth of the review should match the content and the agreed scope. A product label and a medical-device instruction do not carry the same consequences if something is missed.
When commissioning a review, ask for its scope: source comparison, Danish language editing, terminology checks and in-context review are related tasks, but they are not interchangeable.