Image translation QA checklist for publishable graphics

A translated graphic is not ready because it looks convincing at a glance. It is ready only when every text region has been checked, the meaning still matches the approved copy, the design remains readable, and factual details have been verified by the right owner. If any critical check fails, revise or reject the asset instead of publishing it.

Use separate passes for language, design, and facts. That prevents a clean layout from hiding a mistranslation, and it prevents accurate wording from excusing unreadable type. Record each result as pass, revise, or reject. A vague "looks good" is not a useful approval.

Check every text area

Start with an inventory of the source image. Do not begin by comparing overall appearance. Small labels, corner badges, disclaimers, and text inside an object are easy to miss when the main headline draws all the attention.

Create one row for each visible text region. Give it a simple location name, such as top left badge, main headline, or bottom price line. Copy the approved source wording beside it, then note what appears in the translated result.

Check logos and proper names even if they were not meant to change. Image generation can alter details outside the intended text area. If you cannot tell whether a mark is accurate, send it to the owner rather than guessing.

This inventory becomes the backbone of the rest of the review. After a revision, the reviewer can return to the failed regions without relying on memory.

Compare meaning and omissions

Read the approved source and target copy without looking at the image first. Confirm the intended message, tone, names, and factual limits. Then compare that approved target copy with what the image actually shows.

Check for more than obvious mistranslation. A short word may be missing. A negative may have disappeared. A line break may connect the wrong adjective to a product. A polished sentence may still promise something the approved copy did not promise.

Use a language pass with four questions:

• Does every translated phrase express the approved meaning?
• Is any source idea missing, softened, strengthened, or duplicated?
• Did the output add a claim, label, or instruction?
• Can a fluent reviewer understand the text at the size in which it will appear?

Mark a phrase revise when the intended meaning is clear but the wording needs correction. Mark it reject when the meaning cannot be verified, a critical statement is missing, or the result could mislead the reader. Do not let visual quality overrule a language failure.

If the target copy is longer than the source, decide whether the approved copy can be shortened before shrinking the font. The goal is not to force every word into the old box. The goal is to keep the message readable and faithful.

Inspect typography and layout

Now review the graphic as a visual object. Compare the source and result side by side at the same dimensions. Zoomed inspection is useful for artifacts, but it does not replace a check at the final display size.

Inspect font style, weight, size, color, stroke, shadow, line height, alignment, and spacing. The output does not need to reproduce an unknown font exactly to be usable, but it should not look pasted on or break the visual hierarchy. The most important message should remain the easiest to read.

Also check the image around the text. Look for smeared edges, repeated shapes, changed facial details, bent product features, or damaged background patterns. Text replacement can affect nearby pixels even when the words themselves look clean.

Use these pass conditions:

• The headline remains readable without crowding the subject.
• Supporting text is smaller but still legible.
• Line breaks do not create a different meaning.
• Text effects are consistent enough to look intentional.
• The background and subject do not contain unexplained changes.

Fail the visual pass when type is unreadable, text covers an important detail, or a nearby image change could misrepresent the subject. A design that needs manual repair belongs in revise, not pass.

Verify factual content

Names, numbers, dates, prices, measurements, units, model numbers, and offer terms need their own review. These tokens are easy to skim and can cause a much bigger problem than an awkward adjective.

Keep an approved source beside the image. Compare each factual token character by character. Check punctuation and separators as well as digits. A decimal mark, currency symbol, minus sign, slash, or unit label can change how a value is read.

The visual reviewer should not approve facts from memory. Assign each class of fact to an owner who has access to the current source. Marketing copy may belong to a content owner. Product dimensions may belong to a catalog owner. Legal, medical, safety, or regulated statements may need qualified review outside the creative team.

Pass only when the value, label, and context match the approved source. Revise when the correct replacement is known and authorized. Reject the asset when the source is missing, conflicting, or outside the reviewer's authority.

This factual pass does not certify compliance. It simply prevents the visual review from treating factual content as decoration.

Approve or reject the asset

Finish with one recorded decision. Do not average critical failures into a passing score. A graphic with excellent layout and one unsafe claim still fails.

Use a simple release record:

Record the asset ID, language, version, reviewers, failed checks, final status, and approval date. If a revision changes wording, run the language and factual passes again. If it changes the image, repeat the visual pass. Do not assume a small correction leaves everything else untouched.

The checklist is complete when another reviewer can see what was checked, what failed, who approved the facts, and why the final asset passed. Until then, the graphic remains a candidate, not a publishable result.