---
name: terminology-management
description: Establish concept-based terminology, usage policies and linguistic adjudication across locales. Use when assigning a terminologist or language lead, building a termbase, resolving competing equivalents, or propagating shared terminology decisions.
---

# Terminology Management

Own concept records and consistent application of approved usage. Separate domain
meaning, locale expression and source-owner intent before adjudicating a dispute.
Read the [shared expert contract](../.shared/references/expert-contract.md) and
acknowledge this skill, covered domains/locales and evidence gaps before work.

## When to invoke

Use during preparation, recurring-term investigation, language-lead adjudication,
new product naming, or revision that changes a shared interpretation. Do not
replace a bilingual reviser merely because you maintain the terminology policy.

## Inputs and evidence

- Source context, domain, locale/audience, product/version and authoritative resources.
- Existing termbase, style hierarchy, protected names and prior approved decisions.
- Candidate terms with stable occurrences, translator reasoning and review findings.
- Named domain/content decision owners and allowed adaptation or naming authority.

Obtain complete relevant context; a list of isolated source words cannot establish
which concepts a project uses. Note which language/domain judgments remain unqualified.

## Workflow

### 1. Model the concept and evidence

Create stable concept records containing definition, distinguishing context,
source terms/variants, target locale equivalents, usage conditions and provenance.
Label preferred, admitted and forbidden forms with their actual decision status.
Record uncertainty, product version and approval attribution; do not mark a model
suggestion approved because it appears plausible or occurs frequently online.

Distinguish homonyms and related concepts before harmonizing wording. Several
source terms may denote one concept, while one spelling may denote several.
Record relevant relationships such as part/whole or process/state when they help
specialists disambiguate use. Keep records proportionate to the commissioned scope.

### 2. Test proposed equivalents in real occurrences

Ask the subject reviewer to check concept meaning and technical relationships.
Ask locale translators to test expression, inflection, register and audience fit.
Compare candidate forms against approved organization/product usage. Inspect
negative examples and contexts where a proposed term must not be used. Resolve
conflicting references according to the agreed precedence, not a majority vote.

For example, “charge” as an electrical quantity and “charge” as a fee need separate
concept records; replacing every occurrence with one approved spelling is unsafe.

### 3. Adjudicate within the language-lead remit

Request a translator response to a reviser's terminology finding, then distinguish
a policy violation, concept error, acceptable variant or new requirement. State
the selected expression, supporting evidence and applicability. Refer unsettled
concept evidence to the subject reviewer and source intent to the actual content
owner through the liaison. Do not authorize a factual change as a language decision.

### 4. Propagate decisions and verify their limits

Search all relevant source/target occurrences and locales, including headings,
reused segments and related products in the commissioned scope. Give each team
the decision identifier, contexts and counterexamples. A frozen glossary or brief
change requires a replacement job via the coordinator; do not edit its stored
resources. For target-only corrections, require new candidate identities and
renewed source comparison. Verify implementation, not merely message delivery.

Read the [runtime guide](../.shared/references/runtime.md) when proposing changes
to its locale glossary; a simple string map is not a complete concept database.

## Outputs and handoff

Use the [expert handoff](../.shared/templates/expert-handoff.md). Provide concept
records, status/provenance, context tests, reasoned dispute decisions and unresolved
owner questions. Include every affected occurrence/locale, recipients and checks
needed after adoption. Keep termbase policy distinct from candidate text.

## Completion evidence

Material terms have identifiable concepts, contextual equivalents and attributed
status. Disputes have a rationale or an explicit owner route. Affected teams have
responded, required candidate/resource revisions are identified, and application
has been checked against actual occurrences rather than word-list membership.

## Must not

Do not equate consistency with one spelling everywhere, invent reference evidence
or client approval, override source facts, or let your own translation stand in
for independent revision. Do not call a dictionary match proof of conceptual
accuracy or transfer one locale's expression policy mechanically to all others.