15 KiB
Translation, Reframing & Audience Shift Template
Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Translation Template Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Characterize source and target audiences
- [ ] Step 2: Map translation requirements
- [ ] Step 3: Execute translation
- [ ] Step 4: Validate fidelity
- [ ] Step 5: Finalize and deliver
Step 1: Complete Section 1: Audience Characterization for both source and target.
Step 2: Fill out Section 2: Translation Mapping to identify gaps and strategy.
Step 3: Use Section 3: Translated Content to perform the translation.
Step 4: Apply Section 4: Fidelity Validation to verify semantic accuracy and audience fit.
Step 5: Complete Section 5: Delivery Package with final content and rationale.
1. Audience Characterization
Source Audience
Expertise Level:
- Expert (domain fluent, comfortable with jargon, wants depth)
- Intermediate (familiar with basics, needs some context)
- Novice (no background assumed, needs plain language)
Primary Goals:
- Decision-makers (want options, trade-offs, recommendations)
- Implementers (want specifics, how-to, constraints)
- Learners (want understanding, context, mental models)
- Stakeholders (want impact, status, next steps)
Context:
- Time available: [e.g., 5 minutes, 30 minutes, unlimited for reference]
- Medium: [Email, document, presentation, conversation, etc.]
- Familiarity with topic: [Deep context, some awareness, completely new]
- Sensitivity: [Public/external, internal/private, confidential]
Cultural/Demographic:
- Language comfort: [Native English, non-native, specific terminology expected]
- Generation/age: [Gen Z, Millennial, Gen X, Boomer - affects tone/references]
- Industry background: [Tech, healthcare, finance, manufacturing, government, etc.]
- Geography: [US, Europe, Asia, global - affects idioms, examples, formats]
Tone & Style of Source:
- Formality: [Formal, semi-formal, casual, conversational]
- Emotion: [Neutral, enthusiastic, concerned, celebratory]
- Perspective: [First person, third person, passive voice]
- Length/depth: [Brief, moderate, comprehensive, exhaustive]
Target Audience
Expertise Level:
- Expert (domain fluent, comfortable with jargon, wants depth)
- Intermediate (familiar with basics, needs some context)
- Novice (no background assumed, needs plain language)
Primary Goals:
- Decision-makers (want options, trade-offs, recommendations)
- Implementers (want specifics, how-to, constraints)
- Learners (want understanding, context, mental models)
- Stakeholders (want impact, status, next steps)
Context:
- Time available: [e.g., 1 minute, 10 minutes, will read thoroughly]
- Medium: [Email, document, presentation, conversation, etc.]
- Familiarity with topic: [None, minimal, some background]
- Sensitivity: [Public/external, internal/private, confidential]
Cultural/Demographic:
- Language comfort: [Native English, non-native, avoid jargon]
- Generation/age: [Affects communication style, references, emoji use]
- Industry background: [Different from source? Requires analogy bridge?]
- Geography: [Same or different from source? Affects examples, units, dates]
Desired Tone & Style:
- Formality: [Formal, semi-formal, casual, conversational]
- Emotion: [Neutral, encouraging, urgent, reassuring]
- Perspective: [First person (we/I), second person (you), third person]
- Length/depth: [TL;DR, brief summary, moderate detail, comprehensive]
Audience Gap Analysis
Expertise gap: Source is [expert/intermediate/novice] → Target is [expert/intermediate/novice]
Gap size: [Small (1 level) / Moderate (2 levels) / Large (expert ↔ novice)]
Implication: [If large gap: Requires significant simplification/elaboration and bridging analogies]
Goal misalignment: Source focused on [decision/implementation/learning] → Target needs [decision/implementation/learning]
Implication: [Requires emphasis shift - highlight different aspects of same information]
Context difference: Source has [time/medium/familiarity] → Target has [time/medium/familiarity]
Implication: [Requires length/format/explanation level adjustment]
Cultural/Demographic difference: Source is [demographic] → Target is [demographic]
Implication: [Requires idiom replacement, reference changes, example adaptation]
2. Translation Mapping
Translation Type Classification
Select primary translation type(s):
- Technical ↔ Business (engineering details ↔ business value)
- Strategic ↔ Tactical (vision/goals ↔ actions/tasks)
- Expert ↔ Novice (domain jargon ↔ plain language)
- Formal ↔ Informal (professional report ↔ casual communication)
- Long-form ↔ Summary (comprehensive ↔ highlights)
- Internal ↔ External (company context ↔ customer-facing)
- Cross-Cultural (one culture/generation/industry → another)
- Medium Shift (written ↔ spoken, document ↔ presentation)
Translation Strategy
Based on audience gap, select strategy:
If simplifying (expert → novice, technical → business):
- Remove: [Jargon, technical details, implementation specifics, edge cases, nuance]
- Add: [Definitions, analogies, "why this matters", examples, context]
- Shift emphasis: [How it works → Why it matters | Metrics → Outcomes | Process → Impact]
- Bridge technique: [Use familiar domain to explain unfamiliar - analogies, metaphors]
If elaborating (novice → expert, business → technical):
- Remove: [Over-explanations, basic definitions, hand-holding]
- Add: [Precision, technical terms, caveats, edge cases, constraints, methodology]
- Shift emphasis: [Simplified model → Accurate complexity | Outcomes → Metrics | Impact → Process]
- Depth technique: [Add layers of detail, specify units/quantification, cite sources]
If changing tone (formal ↔ informal):
- Formal → Informal: Active voice, contractions, first/second person, simple language, conversational flow
- Informal → Formal: Remove contractions, third person, passive where appropriate, professional terminology, structured sections
If compressing (long → summary):
- Structure: Inverted pyramid (most important first)
- Preserve: Core findings, key recommendations, critical caveats, next steps
- Remove: Supporting details, full context, exhaustive examples, tangents
- Ratio target: [e.g., 50:1, 10:1, 3:1 depending on need]
If cross-cultural/demographic:
- Replace: Culture-specific idioms, references, examples with universal or target-culture equivalents
- Adapt: Date formats, measurement units, communication norms
- Clarify: Assumptions that source culture takes for granted
What Must Change
| Element | Source | Target | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jargon/terminology | [Technical terms used] | [Plain language equivalent] | [Target expertise level lower] |
| Tone/formality | [Current tone] | [Desired tone] | [Target audience expects X] |
| Emphasis | [What's highlighted now] | [What should be highlighted] | [Target cares about Y not Z] |
| Length | [Current length] | [Target length] | [Time constraints] |
| Structure | [Current organization] | [Target organization] | [Medium change] |
| Examples/analogies | [Current examples] | [Relatable examples for target] | [Cultural/domain difference] |
| Details level | [Current depth] | [Target depth] | [Expertise gap] |
What Must Preserve (Semantic Fidelity)
Critical to maintain accuracy:
- Core facts: [List key facts that must remain true]
- Relationships: [Cause-effect, dependencies, constraints that must be preserved]
- Limitations/caveats: [Important qualifications that can't be dropped]
- Implications: [What this means for the audience - must remain accurate]
- Quantification: [Numbers, timelines, magnitudes - can round but not distort]
Verification test: "Would an expert in the source domain confirm this translation is accurate?"
3. Translated Content
Original Content (Brief Excerpt)
[Paste relevant excerpt from original, or summarize if very long]
Key points in original:
- [Point 1]
- [Point 2]
- [Point 3]
- [Point 4]
- [Point 5]
Translated Version
[Write full translated version here, formatted for target medium]
If target medium is email: Use short paragraphs, bullets, bold for key points, skimmable structure.
If target medium is presentation: Slide-friendly bullets, one main idea per slide/section, visual cues.
If target medium is document: Clear headers, sections, reference format, comprehensive.
If target medium is conversation: Conversational language, questions to check understanding, interactive.
Example structure for executive summary:
[Title - Clear, jargon-free]
Bottom line up front (BLUF): [1-2 sentence core message - what they need to know]
Key findings/decisions:
- [Point 1 - phrased for target audience with their priorities]
- [Point 2]
- [Point 3]
Recommendation: [Clear action with rationale]
Next steps: [What happens now, timeline, who's responsible]
Context (if needed): [Brief background only if target needs it]
Translation Diff
What changed from original:
| Aspect | Change Made | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Jargon | [Replaced "X" with "Y"] | [Target doesn't know X, Y is familiar equivalent] |
| Details | [Removed implementation specifics] | [Target is decision-maker, not implementer] |
| Emphasis | [Highlighted business value over technical approach] | [Target cares about ROI, not how it works] |
| Tone | [Changed from formal report to conversational email] | [Target prefers approachable communication] |
| Length | [Reduced from 5 pages to 1 page] | [Target has 5 minutes, not 30 minutes] |
| Structure | [Inverted pyramid - key finding first] | [Target may not read to end, need headline first] |
| Examples | [Replaced code snippet with business analogy] | [Target doesn't read code, needs business framing] |
| Cultural | [Replaced "home run" with "big win"] | [International audience, baseball reference excludes them] |
What preserved:
| Aspect | How Preserved | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Core facts | [Still states X happened on Y date with Z impact] | [Accuracy check: yes] |
| Relationships | [Still shows A caused B, which enabled C] | [Cause-effect intact: yes] |
| Caveats | [Still notes limitation that it only works under condition X] | [Qualification preserved: yes] |
| Implications | [Still conveys that this means we can now do Y] | [Meaning intact: yes] |
| Numbers | [Still cites 30% improvement, rounded from 32.7%] | [Within acceptable range: yes] |
4. Fidelity Validation
Validation Checks
CRITICAL - Semantic Fidelity: "Would source domain expert confirm this is accurate?"
- Core facts accurate (no distortions from simplification)
- Cause-effect relationships preserved
- Critical caveats included when relevant
- Implications correct for target
- No semantic drift (facts still true, just rephrased)
Audience Appropriateness: "Would target find this clear and useful?"
- Expertise level matched (not too technical or too simple)
- Jargon explained when needed, avoided when unknown
- Addresses target's primary goals (decide/implement/learn)
- Tone appropriate for audience and context
- Length respects time constraints
Emphasis & Medium:
- Leads with target's priorities (not source's)
- Detail level right (enough to understand, not overwhelming)
- Structure fits medium (email skimmable, doc structured, presentation visual)
- Actionable if needed (clear next steps)
Cultural/Demographic (if applicable):
- Idioms/references work for target culture/generation
- Examples relatable to target's context
- No unstated cultural assumptions
If semantic fidelity fails: STOP. Revise to restore accuracy before proceeding.
5. Delivery Package
Final Translated Content
[Paste polished final version here, ready for delivery to target audience]
Translation Metadata
Translation performed:
- Date: [Date]
- Source audience: [Brief characterization]
- Target audience: [Brief characterization]
- Translation type: [e.g., Technical → Business, Expert → Novice]
- Primary changes: [e.g., Removed jargon, added business framing, compressed 10:1]
Translation Rationale
Why this translation approach:
[Explain the key decisions made and why - helps stakeholders understand the translation choices]
Example: "Original was written for engineering team (expert audience) with deep technical detail. Translated for executive stakeholders (decision-makers) who need business implications, not implementation details. Removed technical jargon (distributed lock manager → timing issue), shifted emphasis from how it was fixed to customer impact and prevention, compressed from 3 pages to 3 paragraphs. Preserved: timeline, affected systems, root cause category, resolution confidence. Business value: Executives can quickly understand incident impact, assess risk, and approve resources for prevention—without needing to understand technical implementation."
Validation Summary
Semantic fidelity: ✓ Core facts verified accurate by [source domain expert / self-check against rubric]
Audience match: ✓ Tone, depth, and emphasis appropriate for [target audience characterization]
Emphasis aligned: ✓ Highlights [key priorities for target audience]
Medium optimized: ✓ Formatted as [target medium] with appropriate structure
Limitations/compromises: [Note any unavoidable trade-offs, e.g., "Some technical nuance lost for brevity, but core accuracy preserved" or "Simplified causal chain for accessibility, details available in appendix"]
Minimum Standard: Use rubric (evaluators/rubric_translation_reframing_audience_shift.json). Average score ≥ 3.5/5.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Semantic drift - Facts become inaccurate through simplification. Fix: Verify each simplification preserves truth.
Talking down - Condescending tone to novices ("even you can understand this"). Fix: Respectful explanations.
Jargon mismatch - Too technical for target or too vague. Fix: Define or avoid per target knowledge.
Missing "so what?" - Technical details without business impact. Fix: Every technical detail answers "why does target care?"
Missing "how?" - Strategic vision without tactical translation. Fix: Every goal specifies concrete actions.
Lost nuance - Critical caveats omitted for brevity. Fix: Preserve important qualifications even in summaries.
Cultural assumptions - Idioms or references that exclude target. Fix: Replace with universal or target-culture equivalents.
Wrong emphasis - Highlighting what you find interesting vs. what target needs. Fix: Lead with target's priorities.
Unverified accuracy - Assuming translation is correct without checking. Fix: Test with "would source expert confirm this?"