A Translation Signed by Nobody

A municipal office replaced many routine translations with software. The change worked reasonably well for opening hours and simple notices. Translator Anca was then asked to approve a machine-produced letter explaining a housing appeal. Her name would appear at the bottom, although the office had allowed her only ten minutes to review three pages.

The letter contained no obvious spelling errors. Its difficulty lay in a sentence that made an optional appointment sound compulsory. Anca corrected it and requested more time to check the rest. Her manager said the system was meant to reduce costs, not create another full translation stage. If she refused to sign, the letter could be sent without a named translator.

That option worried her more than the pressure to hurry. An unsigned letter would still influence someone who depended on understanding it. Anca proposed separating low-risk notices from documents affecting people's rights or access to services. The latter would require proper review and a clear contact for questions. She did not claim that human translators never made mistakes; she wanted someone to take responsibility for catching them.

The manager approved a temporary review category after Anca showed how the appointment sentence had changed meaning. The letter went out a day late, with a named contact and an explanation of the delay. A week later, the recipient phoned to ask a question that neither version had anticipated. Anca helped the office clarify it. The conversation reminded her that even a carefully checked document was not the end of communication.