Translation quotes: reconcile weighted words to the work delivered

A translation quote can show fewer billable words than the document contains because the supplier applies different rates to new text, repetitions and matches against an approved translation memory. The useful check is whether the agreed analysis, weights and services explain the price. Comparing only the headline price per word can conceal differences in both scope and effort.

memoQ's documentation describes analysis reports and weighted word counts that apply weights to match categories. Those reports depend on selected analysis settings and resources. The software does not establish the commercial discount a customer must accept. Preserve the supplier's actual report and the agreed pricing schedule rather than assuming a match label always carries the same rate.

Keep two totals: the unweighted source words in scope and the weighted words used in the fee calculation. The former explains the volume being processed; the latter is a pricing convention. Neither alone proves how much review is required, particularly when repeated language appears in different contexts or the existing memory contains unsuitable translations.

Consider an illustrative project containing 10,000 source words. The analysis classifies 4,000 as new text, 2,500 as partial matches, 2,000 as exact matches and 1,500 as repetitions. Assume the contract weights those groups at 100%, 60%, 20% and 10%. These percentages are hypothetical terms, not a software default or recommended industry rate.

The weighted count is 4,000 plus 1,500 plus 400 plus 150, totaling 6,050 words. At an illustrative base rate of $0.14, the translation charge is $847. If the quote separately includes $180 for an agreed independent review and $75 for file preparation, the stated project price is $1,102 before any applicable tax or later approved change.

First check that the match-band counts sum to 10,000. Then multiply each band by its own weight and apply the base rate once. A frequent spreadsheet mistake is to apply the discount to the weighted count again. Another is to include repetitions in both their own category and an exact-match category even though the report already assigns each word to one priced band.

A revised source file can change both the word count and the match distribution. Save the quoted file set, version identifiers, languages, analysis date and selected memory alongside the report. If the customer supplies another version after approval, retain both analyses and show the difference rather than replacing the original evidence with the final file.

Check whether hidden spreadsheet sheets, presentation notes, headers, image text and embedded files are included. The correct scope comes from the deliverable agreement, not from whichever count produces the lower fee. A scanned image that requires manual transcription can add work even when the text-analysis tool finds no editable words in it.

Use the same counting basis for the quote and invoice. Source-language words and target-language words need not match. Character-based pricing is another distinct convention. A rate comparison is meaningful only after the unit, language pair, service scope and treatment of repeated content have been aligned.

If a translation memory changes during the project, record why the final analysis differs. A memory populated by earlier files may create matches for later files. The agreement should establish whether the quote remains fixed or whether those changes alter the final fee. Resolve that commercially before using the later report to rewrite an already approved price.

An exact text match can still need attention because the source context, terminology, intended audience or product has changed. The cost review should ask which activities the supplier promised for each category, including review of retained translations. It should not instruct the delivery team to skip required checks merely because a line carries a low pricing weight.

Separate correction of supplier errors from a customer-requested change in meaning or source content. Preserve the original instruction and the reason for each revision. A new product description supplied after delivery is different from correcting a mistranslation of the approved description, even when both appear as another version of the same document.

Agree how linguistic review, layout checking and final file testing are charged. A desktop-publishing task may follow page complexity rather than word volume. A multilingual website release may require contextual review that a document-only quote excludes. Describe the actual deliverable so those tasks are visible before the invoice arrives.

Start with the approved $1,102 example and add only documented changes. Suppose the customer later approves 300 genuinely new source words at the same $0.14 rate and $40 of extra layout work. The revised amount is $1,184. Show the $42 language addition and $40 layout addition separately; do not apply the original overall weighted discount to new text without a fresh analysis supporting it.

Reconcile by language and purchase-order line when one project contains multiple languages. Shared file preparation might be charged once, while translation and review occur for each language. An invoice containing the same setup fee for every language may be correct under the agreement, but the reviewer should be able to identify the work behind it. Check rounding at the stated billing unit before treating a small difference as a rate error.

For internal profitability, compare delivery hours and external supplier costs with the fee actually earned. Keep that management calculation separate from the customer's weighted-word convention. A profitable rate on new prose can become unprofitable on a technically demanding project with many low-weight matches and extensive review.

Retain a compact record containing the accepted source files, analysis report, weight schedule, quote, change approvals, delivered files and invoice. When a number differs, that record should explain whether the cause was volume, match mix, rate or scope. It gives procurement and the language team a common basis for discussing the next project.