607,000 words, 17 languages
An LSP partner needed rare-language translation, editing, and proofreading at two very different tempos: a 10-day surge, then a four-month sustained programme.
607,000 words - 17 - 5 — Latin, Bengali, Arabic, Devanagari, Cyrillic
607,000 words
Volume delivered
17
Unique languages
Measured outcomes
Rare-language TEP, two phases
Rare-language TEP, two phases
- Client
- confidential language-service partner
- Service
- Translation, editing, proofreading
- Volume
- 607,000 words across 17 languages
- Phase 1
- 8 languages, 257,000 words, 10 days, project-scoped quality review
- Phase 2
- 12 languages, 350,000 words, 4 months, project-scoped quality review
Phase 1 was compression — 8 rare languages, 4 scripts, 257,000 words, 10 calendar days. Phase 2 was endurance — 12 languages over four months, adding materially harder ones.
Across both phases the work covered 17 unique languages and 5 script systems: Latin, Bengali, Arabic, Devanagari, and Cyrillic.
MoniSa handled the work under its Triple ISO operating context: ISO 9001:2015 for process control, ISO 27001:2022 for information handling, and ISO 17100:2015 for translation-service discipline, which governs the second-review principle this work depended on.
The two phases returned different accuracy figures, and and that difference is reported rather than averaged, because it is the most informative number in the case.
The problem to solve
Phase 2 was harder than Phase 1 in a way the word counts do not show. It added Tuvanian, written in Siberian Cyrillic; Navajo, which has almost no standard translation infrastructure; and Kashmiri, which is written in two scripts.
Dual-script Kashmiri is the clearest example of why a language count understates rare-language difficulty. It is one entry on a language list and two production workflows, each needing its own QA.
Navajo carries a different problem: the professional translation infrastructure most languages take for granted — glossaries, style references, an established reviewer pool — barely exists, so the workflow has to supply what the ecosystem does not.
The 10-day Phase 1 window left no room for sequential sourcing. Eight rare languages across four scripts cannot be recruited, briefed, produced, and reviewed one after another inside two working weeks.
Five script systems means five sets of rendering, encoding, and QA requirements. A translation that is linguistically correct and breaks in its script is not delivered.
The buyer-side risk across both phases was single-point failure. In rare languages the qualified pool can be very small, and losing one linguist mid-phase can stall an entire language.
How Translation services was delivered
A pre-built rare-language bench was activated on demand rather than recruited at project start, which is the only way an 8-language, 4-script, 10-day surge is deliverable at all.
Pre-built bench, activated
The rare-language bench existed before the brief. Ten-day delivery across eight rare languages is a sourcing outcome, not a production one.
Staggered parallel delivery
Languages ran in parallel with offset delivery dates so review capacity was not all demanded at once.
QA per script system
Five scripts got five QA treatments, because rendering and encoding failures are script-specific and invisible to a combined check.
Kashmiri as two workflows
Dual-script Kashmiri was produced and reviewed separately per script rather than converted mechanically from one to the other.
What was delivered on this engagement?
607,000 words were delivered across 17 unique languages and 5 script systems, in two phases with different tempos and different difficulty profiles.
| Volume delivered | 607,000 words |
|---|---|
| Unique languages | 17 |
| Script systems | 5 — Latin, Bengali, Arabic, Devanagari, Cyrillic |
| Phase 1 accuracy | Reviewed per engagement rules — 8 languages, 257,000 words, 10 days |
| Phase 2 accuracy | Reviewed per engagement rules — 12 languages, 350,000 words, 4 months |
What supported the result
Why this team fit the assignment
The work required a rare-language bench that already existed, plus script-specific QA across five writing systems and two very different delivery tempos.
What decided the result
Reporting the phase-to-phase accuracy difference honestly told the partner more about future capacity than a blended figure ever could.
What buyers can reuse
- Ask for accuracy by phase and difficulty tier, never as a project average. An average conceals the hardest languages, which are the ones you are buying the vendor for.
- A language count understates rare-language difficulty. Dual-script Kashmiri is one language and two production workflows.
- Compressed multi-language delivery is a sourcing outcome. If the bench is built after the brief lands, the date is already at risk.
- QA must run per script system. Rendering and encoding failures are script-specific and survive a combined check.
- In rare languages, ask what happens if one linguist becomes unavailable mid-phase. The qualified pool may be small enough that there is no answer.
- Zero missed deadlines over four months is a stronger signal than a high accuracy figure over ten days. Sustained delivery is the harder test.
- A useful rare-language brief names the scripts, the review standard, the per-language deadline, and the contingency for linguist unavailability.
Work connected to Rare-language TEP, two phases
Related services, buying guidance and language coverage
Translation services and buyer guidance
Languages listed
More proof
Compare this case with Rare-language TEP sprint and Rare-language evaluation at scale to judge whether the operating pattern fits your brief.
Compare Rare-language TEP, two phases with other projects
These project records show other scopes and delivery decisions for comparison.
AI data services500 hours transcribed under project-scoped review on peer review, with accent-specific transcriber pools.
Regional-accent transcription
The challenge. A partner needed French Canadian, Russian, and Persian transcription where regional variety and technical terminology both had to hold.
What we did. MoniSa sourced by variety rather than language, deployed 15 transcribers, and ran peer review and spot checks during production.
The result. 500 hours with project-scoped quality review measured by spot-check peer review.
Discuss a similar project
Start a projectTranslation servicesChild nutrition guidance delivered in a language with roughly 34,000 speakers worldwide.
Pohnpeian child nutrition
Problem. An LSP partner needed Pohnpeian health content where the qualified translator pool is countable and no standardized health terminology exists.
Action. MoniSa sourced through its specialist network and made terminology decisions judged on reader comprehension.
Result. 20,000 words delivered — reach into a language few suppliers can source at all.
Translation servicesTranslation delivered and accepted in a pair the localization market barely staffs.
Translation for a scarce language pair
Problem. An LSP partner needed a scarce language pair with limited specialist availability.
Action. MoniSa sourced through its specialist network and delivered against the partner's own acceptance standard.
Result. 20,000 words delivered within partner quality standards.
Rare-language TEP, two phases questions
What was delivered on this engagement?
Volume delivered: 607,000 words. Unique languages: 17. Script systems: 5 — Latin, Bengali, Arabic, Devanagari, Cyrillic
Which control supported the Rare-language TEP, two phases result?
Reporting the phase-to-phase accuracy difference honestly told the partner more about future capacity than a blended figure ever could.
Scope work like Rare-language TEP, two phases
For a comparable project, include the language mix, review requirements, deadline and evidence your team needs.
Send a brief