Operator manuals of agricultural implements are delivered in many languages, and the standards require that competent persons review every translation, which makes this review the bottleneck. This paper presents a proof of concept that compares two training workflows on the same LLM, EuroLLM-1.7B-Instruct, trained on operator manuals of one manufacturer. In approach A, a back-translator translates each language version back into English, and an English reader compares it with the English version. In approach B, a checker reads the English version and the translation together, where the checker reports differences. The test sets contain errors planted in numbers, units, opposite words, obligations, negations, and conditions in 24 languages, and they include unmodified text and meaning-preserving edits for alerts and false alarms. The trained back-translator concealed many planted errors, most of all weakened obligations, while translation-quality scores rose. In contrast, the separately trained checker detected most planted errors, although it was weak for units and for number changes unlike those in training. A check by the author confirmed the concealment. In addition, a simple rule check caught the number and unit changes, but it alerted on harmless rewrites. A check of alerts on real Finnish translations showed that most alerts were false, caused by language-specific wording, so the precision on real text remains a limitation. Within this setting, a trained checker might support, not replace, the review by competent persons, and firmer conclusions need more data.

翻译：暂无翻译