What we are
That last point is not a soft one. The large providers advertise pools of hundreds of thousands of contributors. A pool you can recruit from and a network you can vouch for are different assets, and only one of them can stand behind a signature.
What we believe about where this industry is going
We will say this plainly, because everyone in this market is working it out at the same time.
Production is being automated and that is not reversible. Files in, distribute, files out — that coordination work is exactly what the platforms buyers are building do automatically. Competing on throughput and price is competing to be replaced.
Checking is becoming the product. Five years ago quality review was a step inside a translation job, absorbed into the price. Today it is sold separately, with its own name and its own line on the invoice, by every major provider in the industry. That shift is real and it is the reason this company is organised the way it is.
Independence is structural, not marketing. Verification performed by the party that produced the output is weaker evidence than verification performed by someone else. That is true of accounts, of safety, and of language. It is why we do not sell an engine.
Regulation is the one force pushing back on price compression. Where a documented human review is legally required, it does not disappear because someone found a cheaper engine.
Standards and certification
We are working toward ISO 17100 (translation services) and ISO 18587 (post-editing), and building our documentation to the revised ISO 18587 — which extends the standard's scope from machine translation output to non-human translation output generally, including large language model output. Building to the revision now means documenting once rather than certifying to the old version and reworking it.
We are also assessing ISO/IEC 42001, the artificial intelligence management system standard. It requires AI risk assessment, AI system impact assessment, and documented human oversight. As of mid-2026, verifiable holders in the language industry can be counted on one hand, and none of the largest providers publicly lists it.
We already work to the requirements of these standards — qualified reviewers with recorded competence, separation of review from production, documented decisions, version-level traceability. We describe our methodology in the standards' own language.
Certificates follow the process rather than announce it. We will name them here when they are issued, and until then we will tell you exactly where we are if you ask.
We do not publish client names. Several of the companies we work for prefer it that way and we see no reason to trade their preference for our marketing.
We do not publish statistics about ourselves that we cannot evidence.
How we are set up
We work distributed rather than from a single office, which is normal for this industry now and has no bearing on the quality of the documentation we keep. Our linguists are matched to work by language pair and by subject: a medical device reviewer is not a generalist who has read the glossary, and for safety-critical content a generalist is not sufficient.