Why the distinction matters
“Translate this accurately” leaves many decisions unresolved. Does the reader need a rough understanding or publication-ready text? Which audience and regional variant are intended? Are product names fixed? Who can answer questions about ambiguous source content?
A project brief gives the participants something more concrete to work with. It can also expose conflicting expectations before production begins. The following suggestions are our practical interpretation, not a reproduction of the standard's requirements.
An illustrative project brief
A product team plans to translate a help centre from English into Dutch, German, Spanish and Polish. A useful brief might record:
- The users, markets and purpose of the help centre.
- The source-content snapshot included in the assignment.
- Terminology and style resources available to translators.
- The proposed human and automated production stages.
- How questions, corrections and final acceptance will be handled.
Suppose the source says “close your account” but the product distinguishes signing out from permanent account deletion. That ambiguity should become a source question, not four different guesses. A documented decision can then inform all target versions.
How it connects to LISA
The connection is thematic. A portable language resource is more useful when the receiving team knows what it represents and how it should be used. ISO 11669 is not a renamed LISA specification. It belongs to the planning layer that helps teams use technical and quality references coherently.
Where AI fits
For an AI-assisted project, our recommendation is to specify the allowed inputs, terminology resources, human responsibilities and evidence expected at acceptance. “Use AI” is not a complete production method. A change in the model or source material should prompt a decision about whether the original brief still applies.
Limits and related reading
A well-written brief does not itself demonstrate that the translation is correct. Pair planning with an appropriate evaluation approach. Read ISO 5060 for output assessment, MQM for quality criteria and ISO 18587 for the published post-editing scope.
Source record
ISO 11669:2024. This guide uses the publisher's public scope, not the full paid text, and does not make clause-level conformity claims.