Sample · what you receive with every delivery

You may not read French. This is how you check the work anyway. Every translation from Words We Trust comes with a short record, in English, of the decisions behind it: the terms chosen and on whose authority, the editorial calls, and the questions the source text raised. Below is an illustrative record for a typical humanitarian response plan. It contains no client text; every terminology decision in it is drawn from our published Humanitarian Coordination System EN–FR Mini-Glossary.

Translation Decision Record

Client / organisation	[Humanitarian coordination body, country office]
Document	Humanitarian Response Plan 2026, narrative sections 1–3 (strategic objectives, response approach, coordination architecture)
Source → target	English → French (international institutional French; readers in West and Central Africa)
Volume	6,400 words
Delivered on	[date]
Translated by	Gladis Audi, Chartered Linguist (MCIL CL), DipTrans
Revised by	Self-revision after a 24-hour interval; full read against source
Files delivered	Translation (docx, formatting preserved), this record, project glossary (xlsx, 38 entries), translation memory export on request

1. Reference frame applied

1. Your 2025 HRP French version and the 2024 HNO French version (terminology carried over unless superseded below).
2. OCHA’s stated French preferences for coordination terms; UNTERM; the French versions of IASC guidance.
3. Reference works: none needed beyond the above for this document.
4. Register: formal institutional French; sentences shortened where the English stacks three subordinate clauses, because the readers include non-native francophone field staff.

2. Terminology decisions

Only decisions a reader could reasonably question, or that depart from a common rendering. Routine terms are in the glossary, not here.

Source term	French used	Also seen / rejected	Why, and on whose authority
Humanitarian Coordinator	Coordonnateur ou Coordonnatrice de l’action humanitaire	« Coordonnateur des opérations humanitaires », « de l’assistance humanitaire »	OCHA asks for this form in texts that refer to the function. The doublet is OCHA’s own; not shortened to the masculine.
Humanitarian Country Team (HCT)	équipe de pays pour l’action humanitaire	« équipe de pays humanitaire », « équipe humanitaire de pays »	The two rejected forms appear in older documents and are explicitly not to be used.
OCHA (as a name)	OCHA, written « l’OCHA »	« BCAH »	The French acronym BCAH was discontinued in 2012 at OCHA’s request and must not appear in official documents. Your 2025 HRP still used BCAH twice; corrected, see section 4.
cluster (sectoral group)	groupe sectoriel; « Groupe Santé » etc. for named clusters	« cluster », « Cluster Santé »	Official form kept because this is a high-level, published document. « Cluster » is common in field usage; if you want the field form for internal versions, say so and the glossary will carry both.
Joint Operations Centre	Centre d’opérations conjoint	« centre d’opérations civilo-militaires », « centre d’opérations commun »	The first rejected form was superseded in 2013; the second is a mistranslation that still circulates.
WASH	eau, assainissement et hygiène (WASH)	« EAH »	The acronym WASH is kept in French; UNICEF asks that EAH not be used.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee	Comité permanent interorganisations (CPI)	« inter-organisations »	No hyphen in the official form.
surge capacities	renforts mobilisables	« capacité de montée en puissance », « moyens supplémentaires »	This document uses the term for staff deployment, hence « renforts ». The alternatives are correct in health-system or budget contexts and are noted in the glossary for those uses.
System-Wide Scale-Up	intensification à l’échelle du système humanitaire	« urgence de niveau 3 », « L3 »	The L3 designation was replaced by the Scale-Up mechanism; the source text still says “L3” in one place, see section 4.

3. Editorial decisions

Decision	What was done	Why
Gendered forms	Institutional doublets kept where the institution uses them (Coordonnateur ou Coordonnatrice; coordonnateur résident ou coordonnatrice résidente). No inclusive point (·) anywhere.	Matches OCHA and UN Secretariat practice; the point form is not accepted in UN French documents.
Acronyms	English acronyms kept where French usage keeps them (HRP, HNO, OCHA, WASH, OSOCC), expanded in French at first mention.	Readers move between the English and French versions; matching acronyms keeps the two aligned.
Document titles	« plan de réponse humanitaire 2026 pour [le pays] », following the naming pattern for this country.	Standard pattern; three countries use « plan d’aide humanitaire » instead, which does not apply here.
Numbers and currency	Non-breaking space as thousands separator, « millions de dollars É.-U. » in running text, USD in tables.	UN French editorial practice.
Sentence structure	Fourteen sentences split in two. No content removed.	Source sentences of 60+ words with nested clauses; readers include non-native French speakers.
Quotations from the HNO	Taken from the published French HNO, not retranslated.	Consistency with a document already in circulation.

4. Source-text queries

Points in the English that are ambiguous, inconsistent or out of date. The French follows the reading stated below unless you tell us otherwise.

Location	Issue in the source	What the translation does	Your decision needed?
Section 2.1, para 3	“L3 emergency” used although the mechanism is now System-Wide Scale-Up.	Translated as the Scale-Up term, with a comment in the file.	Yes: confirm whether the English should also be updated before publication.
Section 3, table 2	Row for “Logistics cluster” gives a lead agency different from section 3.2 text.	Translated as written in each place; both flagged.	Yes.
Section 1.4	“affected people” and “people in need” used interchangeably in two paragraphs, although the figures differ (2.1 M vs 1.6 M).	Kept the distinction in French (personnes touchées / personnes dans le besoin) and matched each figure to its term.	Please confirm the figures.
Throughout	Your 2025 French HRP used « BCAH » twice and « équipe humanitaire de pays » once.	Not carried over; corrected forms used.	No, unless you want the 2025 text left as is for continuity.

5. For your French-speaking reviewer

Where a reviewer may prefer a different form, and why the choice was kept. This section exists so that reviewer comments can be resolved in one round.

Item	Likely reviewer preference	Why the delivered form was kept	Change on request?
« groupe sectoriel »	« cluster », as spoken in the field	This is a published, high-level document; the official form is expected.	Yes, for internal versions.
Doublets « Coordonnateur ou Coordonnatrice »	Masculine only, shorter	This is the form OCHA requests.	No.
Split sentences	Restore the English sentence length	Readability for non-native readers; meaning unchanged.	Yes, if the reviewer prefers.

6. Consistency assets updated

• Project glossary: 38 entries, of which 9 new (attached).
• Translation memory updated; export available on request.
• For the next document: the L3 / Scale-Up point and the Logistics lead-agency inconsistency should be settled in the English before the French of the monitoring report is started.

Method note: choices are made and documented using named translation procedures (Vinay & Darbelnet; Delisle), so that every departure from a literal rendering can be explained and repeated.

A record like this comes with every delivery. Request a quote →