Audit and review
Glossa does not stop at generating a draft. It also runs a judge stage so you can inspect quality issues chunk by chunk.
The judge is separate from generation because the model that produced a draft should not be the only reviewer of that draft. LLMs and pipelines explains the general principle.
What the judge reports
- Overall quality rating
- Structured issues
- Suggested fixes
- Terminology, accuracy, grammar and fluency concerns
Consistency across segments comes from the coherence check instead, which is a separate pass with its own prompt.
The shape of the answer is the same for everyone
The judge has to answer in a precise shape — a rating, a list of issues, the type and severity of each — and that shape is a single one, valid for every provider. With local models Glossa enforces it while the answer is generated, so the model cannot even phrase an answer outside the format; with cloud providers it is declared in the request.
For the same reason, at judging time the temperature stays at zero on local models, whatever value is set: an answer bound to a schema has to be predictable, and two runs on the same text must not give different verdicts by chance. Translations keep using the temperature you chose, and a note in the judge's settings says so where the field is filled in.
What to do after an audit pass
| Outcome | Next move |
|---|---|
| Minor wording issues | Edit manually, then re-run audit |
| Systematic terminology drift | Fix glossary or phrase-memory selection |
| Wrong interpretation | Revisit the translation prompt or provider choice |
| Formatting noise | Narrow the format stage instead of compensating in audit |
Review loop
- Run a test chunk or full batch.
- Open the audit output for the chunk.
- Read the issue list against the source and translated text.
- Edit manually, re-run a stage, or re-run audit only.
- Convert persistent issues into annotations if they need editorial tracking.
When to trust the judge
The judge is best used as a second pass, not as the final authority.
- Trust it for spotting repeated terminology drift or obvious omissions.
- Verify it manually on nuanced register, interpretation, or philological edge cases.
- If it keeps reporting noise, tighten the prompt or simplify the earlier stages.
Review strategy for long documents
- Use Test mode early to calibrate the pipeline on representative chunks.
- Use annotations to mark unresolved passages without losing context.
- Use coherence checks when the document depends on cross-chunk consistency.
- Export only after the chunk list is no longer carrying unresolved issues.
- Lock stable chunks only after they have survived both manual reading and audit review.
See also
- Annotations — how to track and anchor editorial findings per chunk
- Glossary and phrase memory — for controlling terminology drift upstream
- LLMs and pipelines — why the judge is a separate stage
- Context and caching — how Glossa keeps consistency across chunks