A translation can read smoothly while giving the reader the wrong instruction. It can also look different from your preferred wording while remaining perfectly acceptable. The revision task asks you to tell those situations apart, then make your intervention clear enough for someone else to inspect.
For NAATI Certified Translator revision, connect three things in every error comment: the incorrect segment you have selected, a suitable correction in the translation’s target language, and an appropriate error category in English. Check the source and task brief before intervening, and leave acceptable choices alone. The useful preparation is learning to make each comment repair an identifiable problem, rather than rewriting the text into your own style.
This guide develops that particular annotation decision. It does not replace the existing translation practice workbook, which owns the wider worked-passage and revision practice route. The cases here are new, short teaching examples for inspection, not official NAATI passages, a complete mock test, a marking scheme or a promise of certification. Official instructions were checked on 23 October 2026.
Find your next learning step
Practise NAATI Certified Translator revision by linking the selected error, target-language correction and suitable category, while preserving acceptable wording.
ROUTE 1 · CHAPTERS 1–3
Read and annotate
Establish direction, align the comment and recover source meaning.
ROUTE 2 · CHAPTERS 4–6
Repair the message
Choose a span and work through timing and omitted meaning.
ROUTE 3 · CHAPTERS 7–9
Control the intervention
Remove additions, use categories and preserve acceptable wording.
ROUTE 4 · CHAPTERS 10–12
Diagnose and rehearse
Check language, locate the gap and practise the interaction.
ROUTE 5 · CHAPTERS 13–15
Check a fresh decision
Revise a new case, resolve questions and use the official documents.
Full chapter index · Independent learning check · Education parent guide
Full chapter index
Read and annotate · Chapters 1–3
Repair the message · Chapters 4–6
Control the intervention · Chapters 7–9
Diagnose and rehearse · Chapters 10–12
CHAPTER 1 OF 15 · Read and annotate
Establish the exact task and language direction
Begin with your actual Certified Translator task, not an assumption that every translation assessment uses the same output. NAATI’s Certified Translator candidate instructions describe a supplied source and a translation containing errors. Candidates identify, correct and categorise the errors. The instructions distinguish that work from changes made for personal stylistic preference.
Language direction matters. In a LOTE-into-English task, the corrected wording belongs in English. In the reverse direction, it belongs in the other language. The category remains in English under the instructions. A learner who can explain an error in English may still need practice producing the correction accurately in the target language.
The following examples use original short Spanish sources and English translations so that the decisions remain visible. They illustrate LOTE-into-English reasoning only. A learner working in another language should use its relevant official category document and suitable language support. A short bilingual example cannot establish readiness across another language pair or the full assessment.
Read the task brief before inspecting individual words. Identify the text’s purpose, audience and type. A public information notice, for example, should help a reader understand the stated arrangement. You are preserving that communicative job while checking meaning and language. You are not being invited to add useful-sounding information that the source never supplied.
Keep the broader educational aim in view through Learning That Transfers into Life. The skill becomes useful when you can revise a new text for its actual reader, including when the errors look different from the ones you practised yesterday.
NAATI’s instructions require the incorrect word, phrase, clause or sentence to be highlighted through a comment. The correction goes in that comment box in the target language, along with one appropriate category in English. Some errors can reasonably fit more than one category; the official instructions allow an appropriate category rather than demanding one uniquely possible label.
That format creates a useful consistency test. Does the selected span contain the problem you are naming? Does the replacement actually repair it? Does the category describe that intervention? If those three answers point to different things, the comment may be difficult to interpret even when you have noticed a genuine error.
Imagine selecting “Thursday” but writing a comment about an omitted collection condition elsewhere in the sentence. You have identified two possible concerns without connecting either properly to its correction. Separate the decisions or choose a span that accurately contains the related problem. The annotation should make your reasoning traceable, not leave the reader guessing where the replacement belongs.
During practice, add a private explanation of why the change is necessary. This explanation is a teaching aid, not an extra official submission requirement. It can expose a correction based only on taste: if your reason is “I would say it differently,” return to the source, brief and language problem before deciding that an intervention is justified.
The goal is not a long comment. It is a complete one. A precise replacement and suitable category can be compact while still showing a clear decision. Practise that precision before adding the pressure of a full timed task.
Read the comment as a replacement instruction
Ask a reviewer to read only the selected span and your comment, then explain what they would insert. If they cannot tell whether you intend a word, clause or whole sentence to be replaced, the annotation needs attention. This exercise tests clarity of communication; it does not reproduce an examiner’s marking process. You can perform it with your own original practice material without sharing protected assessment content.
Then return the surrounding sentence to view. A replacement may have been clear in isolation but repeat a subject or leave two verbs joined incorrectly. Repair the annotation so that its intended insertion produces a complete result. This is particularly useful when you changed your mind while composing the comment and left part of an earlier correction behind.
CHAPTER 3 OF 15 · Read and annotate
Recover the source meaning before judging the English
Fluent target wording can draw attention away from the source. To resist that pull, first establish the relevant relationship in the source: who does what, under which condition, at what time and with what degree of certainty. Then compare the translation against that relationship. Do not let an elegant English sentence become evidence that the meaning must be right.
Use this original source: “El centro entregará los mapas el jueves. Las personas que no puedan acudir podrán recogerlos el lunes siguiente.” The centre will distribute the maps on Thursday; people unable to attend may collect them the following Monday. That is the information to preserve in this invented arrangement.
Now inspect the flawed target: “The centre distributed the maps on Thursday. Everyone must collect them the following Monday.” The first sentence changes a future action into a completed one. The second changes both the eligible group and the nature of the arrangement. A fluent reading alone would not reveal those differences.
Possible repairs include “will distribute” for “distributed,” and “People who cannot attend may collect them the following Monday” for the second sentence. A suitable meaning-transfer category should accompany the actual selected error. The teaching reason is that the reader otherwise receives a different timeline or instruction.
Do not turn this source into a rule that every Spanish future form has one fixed English rendering. Context and brief matter. The useful habit is comparing the relationship communicated by the whole expression. In another text, a different natural English construction may preserve the same relationship without matching the source word for word.
CHAPTER 4 OF 15 · Repair the message
Choose a span that makes the correction unambiguous
A selection can be too small. If a mistaken phrase changes the relationship between two clauses, highlighting one isolated word may leave the intended replacement unclear. A selection can also be too large. Highlighting a whole paragraph for one misspelt word makes it harder to see what you are correcting and risks disturbing acceptable language.
Use the smallest span that contains the error and supports an intelligible correction. This is a preparation principle, not a separate NAATI rule about a fixed number of words. The official instructions permit errors at different textual levels. Your choice should reflect where the problem actually operates.
Consider “Participants can collect a map only if they registered earlier.” If the source instead permits collection whether or not they registered, the problem is more than the word “only” in isolation. A correction may need to replace the conditional phrase so that the whole relationship reads naturally and accurately. Inspect the resulting sentence after the replacement, not just the replacement fragment.
By contrast, if “participants” is misspelt in an otherwise accurate sentence, a local word correction is enough. Replacing the entire sentence could still produce correct English, but it would make the intervention less focused. It also creates unnecessary opportunities to introduce a new error while fixing a simple one.
After writing a comment, mentally insert the correction into the selected span. Read the repaired sentence once against the source and once as target-language prose. Check agreement, reference and punctuation around the join. A correction that works on its own may fail when returned to its actual sentence.
CHAPTER 5 OF 15 · Repair the message
Work a case where time and permission change together
Here is a new fictional source for a community equipment notice: “Las personas inscritas podrán recoger una grabadora el miércoles por la tarde. Deberán devolverla antes de las diez del viernes.” The intended arrangement permits registered people to collect a recorder on Wednesday afternoon and requires its return before ten on Friday.
The flawed translation reads: “Registered participants must collect a recorder on Wednesday morning. They may return it after ten on Friday.” Identify the independent changes before deciding how to annotate them. Permission has become obligation, afternoon has become morning, the return obligation has become permission, and the return boundary has reversed.
One practice approach is to correct the first clause to “Registered participants may collect a recorder on Wednesday afternoon” and the second to “They must return it before ten on Friday.” Those are possible accurate English repairs. The source does not specify a time zone, additional fees or what happens after a missed return; do not add any of those details.
For learning, inspect each changed relationship separately even if you choose a clause-level replacement. Ask whether the correction restores the participant’s freedom to collect, the collection period, the return duty and the deadline relationship. A comment such as “wrong tense” would not adequately describe these particular meaning changes.
Then check the annotation boundary. If you selected only “morning,” your correction should concern that time expression, not silently replace the entire clause. If you selected the complete clause, a complete-clause replacement is easier to interpret. The consistency between span and correction is part of the control you are practising.
CHAPTER 6 OF 15 · Repair the message
Restore missing meaning without adding an explanation
An omission can hide inside a sentence that sounds complete. Original source: “El informe está disponible en la recepción y en la página web, pero la versión impresa no incluye el anexo.” A suitable English rendering needs to preserve both availability routes and the limitation affecting the printed version.
Suppose the target reads: “The report is available at reception and on the website.” That sentence is natural, but it drops the information about the appendix. A possible repair is: “The report is available at reception and on the website, but the printed version does not include the appendix.” The missing relationship has been restored without inventing a reason for it.
Do not add “because printing costs were too high” or “so you should always use the website.” Either could sound helpful, yet neither is supplied by this source. The translator’s task is to communicate the information and purpose within the brief, not to complete a story about how the arrangement arose.
Omission can be harder to annotate than an incorrect word because the absent material has no visible target span. Practise selecting an appropriate existing segment for a replacement that restores the missing content, following the official platform’s practice materials. Avoid inventing a platform feature or relying on a private annotation convention that the actual task does not support.
The distinction between source evidence and added interpretation is developed more broadly in Observed, Inferred, Unknown. Here, the immediate question is narrower: which information belongs in this translation because the source and brief support it?
CHAPTER 7 OF 15 · Control the intervention
Remove an addition while preserving the rest of the message
Original source: “El equipo responderá a las consultas la próxima semana.” It says that the team will respond to enquiries next week. The flawed English reads: “The team will approve every request next week and send the materials free of charge.” Several attractive promises have appeared without support in the source.
A repair must restore the actual action: responding to enquiries. It must also remove the unsupported claims about approval, every request, materials and cost. In this example, replacing the complete sentence may be clearer than trying to repair several disconnected fragments. The selected span and correction should still match.
Now inspect a less obvious addition: “The team will respond to all enquiries immediately next week.” The source supports the general timing but not the added immediacy. Small words can carry substantial commitments. A revision process focused only on long missing phrases may overlook them.
Do not assume that every expansion is unjustified. Languages often require different grammatical forms or explicit wording to communicate an equivalent relationship naturally. The question is whether the target introduces unsupported meaning, rather than whether it contains more words. An English article or an explicit subject can be necessary without adding a new factual claim.
When unsure, explain the source-supported meaning in plain language before choosing the label. Ask what new belief the target would lead a reasonable reader to form. If that belief is not warranted by the source or brief, you have a concrete issue to investigate. This is more reliable than treating word-count difference as an error detector.
CHAPTER 8 OF 15 · Control the intervention
Use categories as descriptions of real problems
NAATI publishes error categories by language. The English category list for LOTE-into-English revision distinguishes meaning changes, omissions and additions from problems involving register, idiom, grammar or syntax, spelling and punctuation. Read the definitions for your direction rather than treating familiar everyday labels as exact substitutes.
The category follows the analysis. First identify what is wrong, then produce a correction, then select an appropriate description. Beginning with a favourite label can distort the diagnosis: a learner who calls everything “grammar” may fail to notice that a perfectly grammatical sentence reverses a condition.
| What you can establish | What the comment needs to repair | A question for checking |
|---|---|---|
| The target gives a different condition | The changed relationship | Would a reader act differently? |
| Source information is missing | The omitted meaning | Has the full relevant message returned? |
| The target promises something unsupported | The added meaning | Is every remaining claim warranted? |
| Meaning survives but language is defective | The actual language problem | Is the repaired wording natural and correct? |
This table is an original learning aid, not NAATI’s category list or marking rubric. Use it to orient a discussion, then consult the official definitions. It deliberately avoids assigning a category from one superficial feature, such as the presence of a modal verb or a longer target sentence.
Where more than one category might fit, keep the correction central. The official instructions recognise that an appropriate category may be accepted in such cases. That does not mean labels are arbitrary. You should be able to explain why the category describes the problem selected and the repair supplied.
Discuss a disagreement through the actual evidence
Suppose two reviewers agree that an original target must change, but describe its problem differently. Begin with the source relationship they both think has been lost. Next, compare their proposed repairs. If one repair restores the source while the other adds an unsupported condition, the disagreement is substantive and needs resolution before discussion of category labels.
If both repairs preserve meaning and produce suitable English, compare the official category definitions with the actual error. An overlap in reasonable descriptions may remain. Do not manufacture a disagreement about the translation merely to obtain one preferred label. Equally, do not use category overlap as a reason to accept a repair that changes the message. The order matters: establish the problem, establish a sound repair, then justify the description.
Keep the outcome in a short note with the relevant context. “Both replacements preserved the condition; the original error could be described in more than one appropriate way” is more informative than “anything is acceptable.” It protects the distinction between flexibility and lack of standards.
CHAPTER 9 OF 15 · Control the intervention
Keep register and idiom separate from personal taste
Two accurate versions can differ in rhythm, sentence order or preferred vocabulary. The revision task does not ask you to turn every acceptable choice into the version you would have written. Before changing a phrase, identify the problem that makes the intervention necessary for this source, language and brief.
Suppose a fictional public notice says, “Please contact the team if you need further information.” You prefer “For further information, please contact the team.” Without another problem, the preference does not establish an error. Leave the acceptable version alone and direct your attention to consequential issues elsewhere.
Now suppose a formal institutional notice uses an expression so casual that it clashes with its stated purpose and audience. Register may be relevant. Explain the mismatch through the brief rather than through a rule that formal writing must always be longer or more complicated. A concise, ordinary phrase can be entirely suitable in formal communication.
An idiomatic problem is different again. A phrase can communicate an understandable idea while using an unnatural combination of words. During practice, consult appropriate language references and competent feedback. Do not label an unfamiliar expression wrong merely because it is outside your own preferred variety or experience.
Keep a small collection of accepted alternatives from reviewed practice. Record the context that makes each acceptable. This helps you develop restraint without adopting the opposite mistake of treating every plausible phrase as valid in every setting. The brief and the actual meaning remain the reference points.
CHAPTER 10 OF 15 · Diagnose and rehearse
Check language after the meaning has been repaired
A correction can restore meaning and introduce a language error at the same time. This often happens when the replacement is written quickly or inserted into a sentence with a different grammatical structure. Read the completed target sentence after every substantial change. Do not assume that an accurate replacement phrase automatically fits its surroundings.
Consider a practice sentence where “The participants is waiting” becomes “The participant is waiting.” The new sentence is grammatical, but it changes the group to one person. If the source refers to several participants, the useful repair is “The participants are waiting.” Grammar and meaning must survive together.
Similarly, removing an unsupported phrase may leave a pronoun without a clear referent. Restoring an omitted clause may require punctuation to make the sentence readable. A repair should not stop at the moment the source information reappears; it should produce functioning target-language prose.
Use two distinct readings. In the source comparison, ask whether the relevant meaning has been preserved. In the target-only reading, ask whether the result works as the intended text. The second reading cannot establish source accuracy, and the first may not reveal every awkward join. Together they provide a more complete check.
The existing guide to English performance on unfamiliar topics supports broader language learning when the subject matter is new. For this task, keep the practical focus on producing a correct, source-supported replacement in the actual target language.
CHAPTER 11 OF 15 · Diagnose and rehearse
Diagnose why a revision attempt breaks down
Keep the first attempt before reviewing it. Otherwise, a polished corrected version can hide whether you detected the problem independently, understood it after a hint or followed a model. Each state can inform teaching, but they support different claims about current control.
Separate detection, correction and categorisation. A learner may spot that a sentence feels wrong but be unable to explain the source relationship. Another may identify the exact meaning error but produce an incomplete English repair. A third may repair accurately while choosing a category that describes a different problem. More undirected translation practice may not address the specific gap.
For a detection gap, compare closely related sources and targets that differ in one meaningful condition. For a correction gap, practise producing complete replacements and reinserting them. For a category gap, compare the official definitions against a small set of already understood errors. These are teaching suggestions, not a prescribed NAATI preparation schedule.
Add an overcorrection check. Count the interventions you can justify, including those made to wording that was already acceptable. Do not convert this count into an unofficial pass threshold. Its purpose is to reveal whether anxiety or preference is causing unnecessary rewriting.
A helpful review note might say, “I found the changed date but missed the changed permission; my replacement restored both once prompted; my next exercise will contrast permission and obligation in a fresh notice.” That note tells a teacher what to work on. “I need to improve revision” leaves the teaching decision unresolved.
Make the follow-up different enough to reveal learning
After correcting a missed permission in an equipment notice, do not immediately repeat the same sentence with another item name and call success independent control. Use a new setting, such as a fictional survey invitation, where the relevant distinction appears in a different grammatical form. Ask whether participation is optional, which people the invitation concerns and what response is actually requested. The relationship should remain recognisable while the wording requires fresh reading.
Later, combine that distinction with one previously secure feature, perhaps a time reference. This makes it possible to see whether the learner can maintain both relationships without losing either. If the combined task fails, return to the response and identify the specific point of confusion. The failure does not erase earlier learning; it shows that coordinating the decisions still needs practice.
Keep support conditions attached to the result. A successful response after a reviewer underlined the relevant phrase is progress in correction, but it does not yet show independent detection. That difference gives the next session a purpose and prevents a helpful teaching prompt from becoming an exaggerated claim about readiness.
CHAPTER 12 OF 15 · Diagnose and rehearse
Rehearse the actual annotation interaction responsibly
Use NAATI’s current official preparation route to become familiar with the testing platform and the relevant task materials. The Certified Translator instructions link to preparation resources. Follow the current permitted-resource and tool rules for your own assessment; a tool available during ordinary study is not automatically permitted during the test.
Separate learning a concept from learning the interaction. You might understand an error perfectly on paper yet struggle to select a span or keep the correction and category together on the platform. A short interaction rehearsal can expose that practical gap before it becomes confused with a language problem.
After a practice comment, check what was actually saved or displayed. Does the highlighted span match your intention? Is the replacement complete? Is the category attached to the same comment? Use the official practice environment for any interface-specific question rather than assuming that a generic word processor behaves identically.
A teacher can ask the learner to explain one comment aloud before reviewing it. The explanation should connect source meaning, error and correction. The teacher’s role is to question and provide feedback, not to preselect every error. Gradually return the decisions to the learner so that apparent success does not depend on a reviewer pointing to each problem.
Family or study partners can help with routine and encouragement without acting as language authorities. A useful question is, “Which change can you justify from the source?” If a disputed language choice needs specialist judgement, use an appropriate teacher or reviewer rather than settling it through confidence or majority opinion.
CHAPTER 13 OF 15 · Check a fresh decision
Try a fresh comment decision before reading the discussion
Original source: “El museo enviará una confirmación a quienes reserven una visita guiada. La entrada a la exposición no requiere reserva.” The fictional museum will send a confirmation to people who book a guided visit. Admission to the exhibition does not require a reservation. Keep the guided visit and exhibition entry distinct.
Flawed target: “The museum has confirmed that everyone must book before entering the exhibition.” Before reading further, identify what a reader would wrongly understand. Then choose a suitable span, write a complete correction in English and consider an appropriate category under the official definitions.
One possible repair replaces the whole sentence with: “The museum will send a confirmation to people who book a guided visit. Admission to the exhibition does not require a reservation.” The repair restores the future communication, the relevant group and the separate entry arrangement. It also removes the unsupported universal booking requirement.
The exercise does not have a single compulsory annotation arrangement. It contains interacting errors in a compressed target sentence, and a reviewer could discuss how best to represent them. What matters for learning is that your selected span and replacement are coherent, the relevant meaning is restored and the category is appropriate to the actual intervention.
Now change the target to an accurate alternative: “People booking a guided visit will receive a confirmation from the museum. No reservation is needed to enter the exhibition.” Would you rewrite it merely to match the first model? You should be able to explain why the information survives despite the different sentence structure. Restraint is part of competent revision.
CHAPTER 14 OF 15 · Check a fresh decision
Answer the practical questions without inventing a score
Must every difference from the source be corrected?
No. Languages express equivalent meanings through different structures. Inspect meaning, language and the brief. A difference in wording becomes a revision issue when it creates an identifiable problem, not simply because it differs from a model answer or your preferred phrasing.
Should the correction be a translation into English?
Only when English is the target language of your task. The official instructions require corrections in the target language, while the category is given in English. Confirm the actual direction and use the relevant category material before practising.
What if two categories seem plausible?
NAATI’s instructions acknowledge that an error can sometimes fit more than one category and allow an appropriate one. Choose a category you can justify from the selected problem and correction. Do not spend the whole exercise searching for a label while leaving the meaning unrepaired.
Can these short examples predict a pass?
No. They isolate a few decisions and do not represent the full length, range, conditions or assessment of the actual task. They can reveal a learning need. A claim about examination readiness requires much broader evidence, and the credential decision belongs to NAATI.
Is this the same preparation as NAATI CCL?
No. The existing NAATI CCL results and dialogue practice guide concerns a different test and reader need. Do not transfer its task structure or result interpretation into Certified Translator revision.
CHAPTER 15 OF 15 · Check a fresh decision
Use the official documents and retain a small learning record
The primary sources are NAATI’s Certified Translator candidate instructions, its language-specific category page and the English category list used for the LOTE-into-English discussion here. Check the current versions before an actual test. This guide makes no claim about fees, test availability or an individual’s eligibility.
The official sources establish the task interaction and category framework. The short passages, faulty targets, proposed repairs and practice sequence in this article are original teaching material. They are not taken from NAATI’s test or sample passages. Any label discussed in an original case is an educational application, not an examiner’s decision.
For your next practice session, keep one first attempt, one reviewed comment and one fresh follow-up. Under the reviewed comment, record what made the intervention necessary. Under the follow-up, record whether you could make the same kind of decision without being shown where the error was. That is enough to choose the next useful exercise without building an elaborate unofficial scoring system.
The final question is simple and demanding: does this comment make the translation more faithful and fit for its stated reader, for a reason you can show? When the answer is clear, revision becomes a sequence of justified decisions. When it is unclear, you have found the exact point where further learning can help.
Keep one acceptable sentence unchanged in your review record too. Explaining why it needs no intervention tests a useful judgement that a page covered only in corrections can otherwise conceal.