What you could do manually is Filter for "MD" (case sensitive) and check the filtered target segments manually. For a real QA task, you'd probably need Regex.

OK thanks! filtering for visual QA is OK, that's already there, but I was hoping for more robust QA. I was wondering what linguists would do when they need extra formatting done that is not in the source. This is something they encounter often enough?

For instance, let's take an example from the job I am looking into, where trademarks and registered trademarks are present in the source content, and fr-CA linguists are tasked to add MD and MC in lieu and QA that they are all done correctly. There are multiple instances at a segment level. So linguists are supposed to check them all. 

What is disturbing is this seems a recurring issue with any jobs in TMS. I won't go into the details of how TMS behaves in this scenario, but basically linguists are having to fix 100% matches segments every time.

Thanks!

Naoko

Maybe you are focusing on trying to fix the consequence instead of fixing the cause?

If the MD and MC are supposed to be superscripted by fr-CA linguistic rules, then shouldn't they be properly superscripted right when they come from the TM (or are inserted manually) in the first place?!

If your 100% matches are incorrectly formatted in the TM, then you should fix them in the TM in the first place.
And also make sure that appropriate autocorrection/autoreplace/whatever is applied when entering the abbreviation manually.

To get back to the QA step, perhaps you should check specialized QA software like Verifika; you may get lucky...

However, I'm not entirely sure if there is any generic way to do such ckeck - simply because in different file formats, the superscripting is done different ways (e.g. how would you know which way - if any!!! - you can make a text superscripted in my own custom XML?!)

EDIT: Just look at some of the "Related" links at the right side of this thread ;-)
e.g. community.sdl.com/.../i-am-unable-to-translate-the-superscript-trademark-symbol-in-the-target-the-superscript-format-disappears

EDIT2: In the linked post I refer to Wikipedia page, which basically clarifies everything - you shoukld actually NOT SUPERSCRIPT ANYTHING... you should be actually inserting appropriate Unicode symbol (which only looks like it's superscripted!).

Maybe you are focusing on trying to fix the consequence instead of fixing the cause?

If the MD and MC are supposed to be superscripted by fr-CA linguistic rules, then shouldn't they be properly superscripted right when they come from the TM (or are inserted manually) in the first place?!

If your 100% matches are incorrectly formatted in the TM, then you should fix them in the TM in the first place.
And also make sure that appropriate autocorrection/autoreplace/whatever is applied when entering the abbreviation manually.

To get back to the QA step, perhaps you should check specialized QA software like Verifika; you may get lucky...

However, I'm not entirely sure if there is any generic way to do such ckeck - simply because in different file formats, the superscripting is done different ways (e.g. how would you know which way - if any!!! - you can make a text superscripted in my own custom XML?!)

EDIT: Just look at some of the "Related" links at the right side of this thread ;-)
e.g. community.sdl.com/.../i-am-unable-to-translate-the-superscript-trademark-symbol-in-the-target-the-superscript-format-disappears

EDIT2: In the linked post I refer to Wikipedia page, which basically clarifies everything - you shoukld actually NOT SUPERSCRIPT ANYTHING... you should be actually inserting appropriate Unicode symbol (which only looks like it's superscripted!).