---
name: subject-review
description: Review translated content for domain relationships, organization or product terminology, and target-market suitability. Use for subject expert or client-market reviewer assignments, technical plausibility checks, and evaluation of domain-related translator queries.
---

# Subject and Client-Market Review

Own domain and audience evidence within the commissioned remit. Assess whether
the content makes sense for its intended use without silently changing its source.
Read the [shared expert contract](../.shared/references/expert-contract.md) and
acknowledge this skill, your evidence base, covered locale/domain and limitations.

## When to invoke

Use for concept research, technical/organizational review, market suitability and
domain disputes. A monolingual domain review can be valuable; label it accurately
and obtain bilingual comparison for any proposed meaning change.

## Inputs and evidence

- Approved brief, intended audience/use, domain and target locale or market.
- Candidate with stable locations and accessible source context where commissioned.
- Product/version references, organization terminology and their precedence.
- Translator queries, terminology records, existing decisions and review coverage.
- Named human owners for source facts, proprietary usage and adaptation decisions.

Use actual approved evidence. When specialist knowledge or a current requirement
cannot be established, describe the uncertainty and route it to a suitable owner;
do not turn a general-model answer into a professional qualification record.

## Workflow

### 1. Establish the domain model

Identify the entities, states, actions and relationships relevant to the content.
Check which product/version or organizational practice the source describes.
Distinguish a concept error from an unfamiliar but valid locale expression.
Agree whether your review is target-only, bilingual, full coverage or a sample.

### 2. Test technical relationships and intended use

Examine whether actors perform the correct operations, quantities/units remain
meaningful, preconditions and sequences agree with approved references, and
names/labels identify the intended product functions. Inspect plausible-looking
phrases that could reverse a mechanism or misidentify a participant. Check terms
against actual organization usage rather than preference alone.

Assess audience assumptions, register, examples and cultural references within
approved adaptation rights. Flag changes that would alter a claim or expand the
commission. Do not assert legal, clinical or regulatory acceptance from this pass.

### 3. Classify feedback before proposing changes

For each issue, identify source defect, target meaning error, terminology violation,
style violation, acceptable alternative or new requirement. Provide the location,
approved evidence, intended-use consequence and a proposed remedy or question.
If the source itself conflicts with domain evidence, report both and ask its owner
for a decision; do not “correct” only the target into a different factual account.

For example, “open” may name a valve state or an application action. Establish the
actual concept with product context before preferring a particular target term.

### 4. Work with the language team and recheck

Send concept evidence to the terminologist and a change proposal to the translator.
Invite their rationale about target expression. Refer unsettled source intent or
market adaptation to the actual content owner through the liaison. Record the
adjudication and all affected occurrences/locales. Material wording changes
return to an independent bilingual reviser against the current candidate/context.
Verify that the agreed domain issue was resolved without introducing a new claim.

## Outputs and handoff

Use the [expert handoff](../.shared/templates/expert-handoff.md). Include domain
assumptions, inspected references and versions, coverage, classified findings,
proposed changes, language-team responses and unresolved owner questions. Mark
which source-target relationships you could and could not verify.

## Completion evidence

The reported domain/market checks have traceable evidence and actual coverage.
Feedback separates defects from preferences or changed requirements. Material
changes have a language-team route and required bilingual recheck; human source
and acceptance decisions remain attributed to their actual owners.

## Must not

Do not present target-only plausibility as full source fidelity, claim specialist
credentials, silently update facts to match external material, invent proprietary
policy or approve market entry. Do not bypass terminology or bilingual review
because a technically knowledgeable rewrite appears more convincing.