Independent Japanese Review

Your vendor translated it.
Who read it?

You paid a translation vendor. The files came back on time. Everything looks fine. But if no one on your side has read the whole thing as a Japanese reader, "looks fine" is all you have.

No charge, no obligation, no call required. Back within a few business days.

This is a common position to be in once the Japanese site has been live for a while. The translation is done. The invoices are paid. And the honest internal summary is: we are trusting that it's fine.

If something on the Japanese site is wrong, it lands on the person who approved the spend, and that person approved output they could not read.

What's missing isn't better translation. It's someone who has read all of it, as a Japanese reader, and can tell you it's fine.

I'm Munehiro Hiraki. I'm a native Japanese speaker, and I do this work myself — one reviewer reading the whole set, rather than a team splitting it up again. For nearly ten years I worked inside a payments company, handling both the fintech work and the translation, which is where I learned that the words a specialist reader trusts are not the ones a dictionary gives you.

This is not a complaint about your vendor

Worth saying plainly, because it's usually the first thing people assume. In the reviews I've done, the translations came from competent professionals, and the terminology was handled by someone who understood the subject. That part was not the problem, and it is not what this review is for.

The gap is structural. Translation vendors deliver file by file. Each file can be entirely correct on its own while the set as a whole drifts apart. And because the work is split across translators and across months, no one in the process has the job of reading everything in one pass.

There's a second half to it: in a lot of projects, nobody has written down which form is your house form. When two Japanese renderings are both acceptable, each file just picks one. The drift is the predictable result of a process with no memory.

What one full-set read found

One recent review: seven files, 397 segments, roughly 11,200 source words, read end to end against the English. Everything below is from that single project.

00Zero mistranslations.Not one meaning error in 397 segments. The specialist vocabulary was handled by someone who knew the field.
20Twenty terms treated differently across files.Each rendering defensible in isolation. Together, they read like several companies wrote the site.
1/5An English acronym carried in one of five occurrences.A second acronym appeared in two of five.
The same English sentence, rendered two different ways.Identical source text in two files, two different Japanese sentences. It is boilerplate that goes into signed documents.
!Two spellings of the same word inside one sentence.Both spellings are correct Japanese. Side by side in one line, a reader reads it as carelessness.

A single file gives you no way to see any of this. Reading the whole set does.

What you get back

The corrections

Marked line by line in the same file you sent — so your team can put them back into your platform without retyping anything or changing how you work.

A glossary

Every term that was being handled inconsistently, with one form chosen and the reason recorded. Hand it to your vendor and the next batch comes back already consistent.

Your house form, written down

A short Japanese style guide. The next batch starts where this one finished — which is the difference between fixing this once and fixing it every quarter.

Sits on top of TransPerfect · RWS · Lionbridge · Smartling · Phrase · an in-house team · or machine and AI output. Your vendor stays. Nothing about your setup has to change.

Questions people actually ask

How do we know if our Japanese translation is any good?

Read it the way a Japanese customer does — not file by file, but all of it in one pass. In a mature project the problems are rarely mistranslations. They're the same term rendered two ways in two files, an acronym carried in some places and not others, and sentences that are technically correct but read like they were assembled rather than written. None of that is visible in the unit the work is delivered in.

Our translation vendor is good. Why would we need a separate reviewer?

Because the gap is structural, not a question of skill. Vendors deliver per file, and each file can be right on its own while the set drifts. Nobody in the process is positioned to read across all of it, and nobody has written down which of two acceptable forms is yours. That is the gap an independent reviewer covers. It isn't a judgement on your vendor, and you don't have to replace anyone.

Who checks the translation vendor's work?

Often, nobody. Doing it requires reading Japanese, understanding the subject, and having time to go through everything at once. The people approving the spend usually can't read what they're approving. That is what this review is for.

Can you review Japanese that came from TransPerfect, RWS, Lionbridge, Smartling, Phrase, or our in-house team?

Yes. The review sits on top of whatever produced the Japanese, including machine translation and AI output. Your vendor isn't replaced and your existing arrangement doesn't have to change.

Do you need access to our TMS or translation platform?

No. Send the files in whatever form you already have them. Corrections come back marked in the same file, so your team can re-enter them without retyping.

We're not ready to commit to anything. What's the smallest first step?

Send up to 500 characters of your existing Japanese: UI strings, one page, error messages, whatever is easiest to get. That is roughly one short page of copy, or around 40 UI strings. You get back a before-and-after list with comments within a few business days. No charge, no obligation, and no call.

Find out what a Japanese reader actually sees

Send 500 characters of the Japanese you already have. I'll send back what I'd change and why, within a few business days. If the answer is that it's fine, I'll tell you that too.

500 characters is roughly one short page of copy, or around 40 UI strings. Paste it into an email, or send the file exactly as you have it.

Send 500 characters — free →