I hope I 'm not throwing a cat among the pigeons, but I use the different statuses for a different purpose in a complex translation assignment for publication, arbitrarily assigning them the following meanings:

I use "Translation rejected" to earmark segments in which material needs research before validation (quotations to be sourced, validation required by the client from sources held exclusively in manuscript form by the client);

"Translation approved" denotes segments that have been previously translated in the series, and can be passed on unchanged;

I mark as "Signed off" segments that have been updated from previously-translated segments in the same series;

"Sign-off rejected" marks segments that are not to be translated: in this assignment, these are mainly instructions to the proofreader and page setter.

I should state that I operate solo, in direct liaison with the end client, who does not work with CAT software.

I hope I 'm not throwing a cat among the pigeons, but I use the different statuses for a different purpose in a complex translation assignment for publication, arbitrarily assigning them the following meanings:

I use "Translation rejected" to earmark segments in which material needs research before validation (quotations to be sourced, validation required by the client from sources held exclusively in manuscript form by the client);

"Translation approved" denotes segments that have been previously translated in the series, and can be passed on unchanged;

I mark as "Signed off" segments that have been updated from previously-translated segments in the same series;

"Sign-off rejected" marks segments that are not to be translated: in this assignment, these are mainly instructions to the proofreader and page setter.

I should state that I operate solo, in direct liaison with the end client, who does not work with CAT software.

Adam Warren 

This is a very valid way of working. You use the statuses for your own purposes, even if these haven't been designed to work that way. But this only supports what I say: the current design is fine and can be used as needed.

This is a familiar scenario for us. We use statuses to differentiate between segments that may not be re-touched without going through a specific approval process, segments that are deemed correct but could be changed for improvement or consistency reasons, etc. We also use the translation rejected status for segments that are in the file but should not be translated. This is in fact the root of the issue.

However, this setup creates an issue: when translators complete their work, the progress bar moves to revision instead of translation and drops to zero. This happens because Studio interprets "translation rejected" segments as the start of a revision cycle.

We need a way to exclude non-translatable segments without: 1/ Leaving them blank (because then the progress bar will never reach 100%) 2/ Using a status that incorrectly signals a revision cycle

A rejection status dedicated to the translation cycle—one that neither updates the TM nor triggers a switch to revision—would solve this problem. It would also ensure that the progress bar reaches 100% once the translation is done and stays there.

We're simply asking for flexibility, not a change that would apply to everyone. I hope my latest comment below makes things clearer. (By the way, I've been using TRADOS tools in various capacities since 1998 and am well-versed in their intricacies. My role involves optimizing user experience within a large team to ensure streamlined workflows.) 

Gwen Gondry 

Ok, adding an extra status is fine, now I get it. But this is not a change of current behaviour, but a deep modification of it. So I would suggest, you post another suggestion with your description, asking for such a status. This makes really much more sense than changing the current behaviour without such a status.

What I do when the software throws the work into revision phase is to start from scratch with "Open for translation", which resets the segments as for translation, not review. I don't know how practical this is on the scale you hint at.

Incidentally, I see you work for the OECD. Does the Organisation use Trados Studio? I'm a former OECD staff translator in the early 1980s. Interesting to liaise. I have just downloaded the:

• OECD
• Publications
• Towards a common reporting framework for AI incidents

document and I shall forward the link to two learned societies:

- the Responsible AI network of the RSA, of which I am a fellow, and

- the Société Française des Traducteurs Forum.

I hope we can get this problem ironed out - while I continue to militate for a 64-bit version of Trados Studio.

With best wishes,

Adam Warren.