ISO 17100:2015 is the international standard for translation services. It specifies the substantive translation workflow, linguist competencies, terminology management, technology infrastructure, and engagement process required of a translation service provider. The TEP workflow — Translation, Editing, Proofreading — runs as three distinct stages with structural separation: the editor is never the translator, and on regulatory-grade or assurance-grade deliverables, the proofreader is never the editor.

The separation rests on a structural insight: a translator and an editor produce qualitatively different error profiles. A translator working under deadline against a complex source will sometimes carry forward a misreading or a terminology inconsistency that they themselves cannot see at the moment of drafting. A separated editor reviewing the same text against the source — with fresh eyes and editorial distance — catches those errors at materially higher rates than self-review. This is why every Big Law procurement specification and every US government translation contract requires the separation, and why Othello does not deviate from it regardless of timeline pressure or scope size.

The firm’s editorial bench runs on the industry-standard CAT (Computer-Assisted Translation) stack: SDL Trados Studio as the primary CAT environment, memoQ as a secondary environment for cross-vendor compatibility and TM portability, and Subtitle Edit for audiovisual / subtitling work. CAT tooling is not machine translation — it is segment-level human translation operating against a Translation Memory lookup, terminology database, quality-check filters, and audit logging. Every segment is logged, every reuse traceable, every terminology decision propagated.

Translation Memory (TM) is the structural compounding asset. Each ISO 17100 TEP cycle commits the approved bilingual segment back to the TM with metadata — domain, client (anonymised at TM level), source, validation date. Six years of work across 50+ ESG reports, 100+ annual reports, sustainability reports, 56-1 One Reports, regulatory filings, and Big Law cross-border deliverables has produced a TM asset that delivers fluency in the substantive terminology Thai listed companies use to disclose to the world.

For repeat clients and multi-year programmes — annual sustainability reports, recurring 56-1 One Reports, ongoing regulatory filings, annual ICMA framework refresh, and multi-year ESG advisory retainers — the TM produces materially better economics in Year 2 and beyond. New work is segmented against the TM at industry-standard match tiers, and pricing is graduated accordingly: Repetition and Context Match at 15% of base rate · Exact Match at 25% · High Fuzzy (95–99%) at 40% · Medium Fuzzy (75–94%) at 60% · Low Fuzzy / new content at 100% base rate.

Real-world effect: a SET-listed sustainability report in Year 2 with substantive structural continuity to Year 1 typically realises 40–60% net cost reduction via TM leverage compared to the equivalent first-year delivery — even with new substantive content layered in. The compounding is structurally why multi-year programmes deliver materially better economics than rotating vendors annually. Detailed pricing methodology runs on How We Quote.

“Translation plus proofread” is the entry-level translation product — a translator drafts the target, a proofreader runs a final-pass review, and the deliverable is shipped. This does not satisfy ISO 17100:2015 requirements and is not used for institutional procurement work. Othello’s QA methodology runs three additional layers on top of the baseline TEP separation: (1) CAT-driven QA filtering at segment level — terminology consistency, number/unit/currency verification, format integrity, tag preservation, forbidden term flags — run automatically before the deliverable leaves the editing stage; (2) categorised error remediation against a six-category taxonomy with Critical/Major/Minor severity tiers; (3) structured client review cycle with named reviewer-on-engagement, defined revision rounds, and post-delivery KPI tracking.

The error taxonomy is operationally important because it lets editors, proofreaders, and clients converse about quality in shared technical vocabulary rather than impressionistic feedback. Critical errors: regulatory mistranslation, numerical inversion, legal authority misattribution. Major errors: terminology inconsistency, stylistic register break. Minor errors: typography, spacing, formatting. Every flagged item is logged with category, severity tier, source segment, remediated rendering, and rationale.

Three substantive structural commitments. (1) Mutual NDA before source material crosses. Default Othello NDA template available on request; client templates reviewed and signed within one business day if standard terms apply. NDA is signed at first email — not at engagement scoping, not at RFP response, not at sample delivery. (2) Confidentiality covers the entire engagement lifecycle — scoping conversations, source review, deliverable drafting, post-delivery, and reference disclosure. Specific Othello-supported engagements are not disclosed publicly without explicit client written authorisation.

(3) The bench is 100% in-house — no source material is shared with external freelancers, no outsourcing to overseas vendors, no submission to consumer LLM endpoints that retain source data. Translation Memory and termbase assets are stored on Othello-controlled infrastructure with GDPR + PDPA compliant data handling. The methodology was set against US government translation procurement requirements at the firm’s founding in 2020, when Federal Acquisition Regulation–grade contractor verification, documentation handling, and audit trail defined what serious translation work looked like.

Both regimes apply in parallel. GDPR (EU Regulation 2016/679) has extraterritorial scope — it applies to any organisation processing personal data of EU/EEA residents, regardless of where the organisation is located. Operationally relevant for Othello when clients are EU institutional buyers, when source documents contain EU personal data subjects, when European institutional investors will receive the translated output, or when the engagement involves cross-border data transfers to/from the EEA. GDPR-aligned operations cover lawful basis, data minimisation, retention limits, cross-border transfer via Standard Contractual Clauses, incident response within 72 hours, data subject rights, and designated data protection contact.

Thailand’s PDPA (Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 / 2019, effective June 2022) is structurally modelled on GDPR with Thai-specific adaptations. PDPA compliance is required for any entity operating in Thailand processing personal data of Thai residents — which covers virtually every Othello engagement. For multinational engagements where both apply, the operational compliance regime is the union of the two — meeting whichever requirement is more stringent on each operational dimension.

Yes — selectively, and always with human editorial anchor. AI tooling is applied operationally inside CAT environments for translation memory work, glossary management, multimodal prompt engineering, and AI-augmented quality evaluation against structured rubrics. The editorial bench operates Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE) workflow as a specialist capability — particularly for high-volume multilingual content where TM coverage alone is insufficient. AI fluency on the bench covers ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot at operational level.

Source material is never shared with consumer LLM endpoints that retain data. The substantive translation, editing, and proofreading remain human-anchored throughout every TEP stage. AI tooling supports the human editorial bench; it does not replace it. For institutional clients with elevated confidentiality requirements (Big Law, US government, SET-listed pre-disclosure), the engagement letter explicitly documents AI tooling boundaries — including absolute exclusion of consumer LLM endpoints from source material processing where required.

Five defined steps, typically three to ten business days from first contact to work beginning depending on scope complexity. Step 1 (Business Day 0) — first contact via email, phone, or contact form sets up a 30-minute scoping call. Step 2 (Day 1) — mutual NDA signed before any source material crosses; default Othello template available on request, client templates reviewed and signed within one business day if standard terms apply. Step 3 (Days 1–3) — scope brief and source material exchange under NDA; methodology approach identified, named bench specialists matched to substantive scope, engagement structure proposed.

Step 4 (Business Hour 1 post-NDA) — quote delivered within one business hour of source material + signed NDA receipt during Bangkok business hours; fixed-fee structure for translation, tier-priced structure for ESG advisory engagements. Step 5 — engagement letter signed, ISO 17100 TEP workflow initiated. For formal RFP processes, standard response is three to five business days covering methodology approach, named bench credentials, capacity allocation, pricing structure, related-methodology track record, and integration with adjacent practice areas — all under mutual NDA.

Worked example: a SET-listed corporate engages Othello for a bilingual EN/TH sustainability report structured to GRI Universal + Topic Standards, with IFRS S2 climate disclosure section and AA1000AS-aligned materiality assessment narrative. Step 1: scoping call under NDA; methodology approach proposed combining the editorial bench (Head of Editorial & Disclosure + Editorial Specialist for bilingual lockstep) with the methodology-credentialed ESG bench (GRI specialist + IFRS S2 specialist + materiality specialist). Step 2: engagement letter signed; named specialists committed; ISO 17100 TEP workflow initiated.

Step 3 (TEP Stage T): domain-matched translators draft bilingual target text against the source; TM leverage applied at 100%/95%/75% match tiers; termbase pulls validated terminology. Step 4 (TEP Stage E): separated editors run bilingual revision; ESG methodology specialists join at editing stage to validate substantive accuracy; CAT-driven QA filters run automatically. Step 5 (TEP Stage P): third-stage proofreaders run both language versions in parallel for bilingual lockstep verification; audit-grade evidence trail finalised. Year 2: 40–60% net cost reduction via TM leverage on the Year 1 substantive content with new material layered in.

The Translation TEP workflow (Translator → Editor → Proofreader) is a three-stage in-document workflow with named linguist separation per ISO 17100:2015. The ESG Advisory methodology is an eight-stage cross-functional engagement workflow running across multiple months or years: Materiality Assessment → Baseline & Maturity Assessment → Framework Mapping → Gap Analysis → Roadmap Development → Implementation → Disclosure & Assurance → Monitoring & Continuous Improvement.

The two methodologies converge at the Disclosure stage. Every ESG advisory engagement that produces a substantive deliverable — a bilingual sustainability report, a 56-1 One Report ESG section, an IFRS S2 climate disclosure, an ICMA Green Bond Framework, an AA1000AS assurance statement — runs the ISO 17100 TEP editorial workflow as part of the Disclosure stage. The methodology-credentialed bench joins the engagement at the stage matching their substantive expertise: Climate & Sustainable Finance Lead at materiality and roadmap; Frameworks Specialist at framework mapping and gap analysis; Sustainability Reporting Specialist at baseline and rating-agency-facing work; Climate & Carbon Lead at AA1000AS assurance; Editorial bench at every disclosure stage.

The materiality lens is the most consequential methodology decision on every ESG advisory engagement because it shapes scope, stakeholder engagement architecture, framework mapping, and disclosure structure across all eight downstream stages. Single materiality looks at the impact of ESG issues on enterprise value, financial performance, and risk profile — the lens used by IFRS S1 / IFRS S2 as set by the ISSB under the IFRS Foundation. Double materiality looks at both financial materiality AND the impact of the organisation on people and the environment — the lens required by CSRD / ESRS for in-scope EU and EU-adjacent entities.

The lens decision is positioned explicitly at scoping rather than defaulting to single materiality. For Thai SET-listed corporates with European institutional investor coverage, with EU customer base, with CSRD-affected subsidiaries, or with CBAM exposure on the export side, the operationally important regime is increasingly double materiality. EFRAG benchmarks set the double-materiality methodology reference; ISSB / IFRS Foundation S1/S2 set the single-materiality methodology reference.

FTSE Russell’s ESG company research relies on publicly disclosed information only — FTSE Russell does not send questionnaires to issuers. The methodology version is v1.1 (August 2025), running 300+ individual indicator assessments across 14 Themes within 3 Pillars (Environmental, Social, Governance). The research cycle runs June to the following March, with index reviews using FTSE ESG data based on the company’s Annual Report and Sustainability Report or Integrated Report published by the last business day of March (for the June review) and September (for the December review). Data Analysis runs October–November (December review) and April–May (June review).

Companies have approximately four weeks via the web-based Sustainable Investment Data (SID) portal to review the FTSE Russell analysis and provide feedback. Post-publication clarification is available for up to 10 indicators per company. Othello’s FTSE Russell-facing workstream covers indicator-by-indicator gap analysis against the 14 Themes, public disclosure remediation, SID portal feedback round preparation, and cross-walk coordination across DJSI / CSA, MSCI, CDP, Sustainalytics, and the Thai SET ESG + IOD CGR cycles. Verifiable cross-anchor proof: a SET-listed healthcare operator’s FTSE Russell ESG Score of 4.0/5.0 in 2025.