The final HTML report is readable by a non-technical user (Mark, Ewing, or a new rep). "OAuth" is explained as "complete the authorization in Claude Desktop." "MCP" does not appear in the client-facing report. "BANT/MEDDIC" is not used because there are no calls to score. "Pre-launch state" is used in the notebook but not in the report body — the report says "the calling stack hasn't been connected yet" in plain language. Three terms that required translation: OAuth (→ "complete the sign-in in Claude Desktop"), Fireflies integrations (→ "connect Fireflies to your dialer"), and MCP (→ omitted entirely from the report).
I don't know whether "AND Capital Ventures" is a term Bear and Mark use interchangeably with "Next Chapter" or whether they are genuinely different entities. I left the org name as-is in the report because I didn't have enough context to translate it. If they are different entities, this could confuse a first-time reader who expects to see "Next Chapter" in the Salesfinity org field.
In runs #003-diallist and #002, tech-translator's main work was stripping acquisition jargon and replacing buyer-archetype terminology. In Run #008, there was no jargon to strip from the final output because writer built the report directly for a non-technical audience. This suggests that when writer and tech-translator work on the same run, writer increasingly anticipates the translation — fewer corrections are needed downstream. This is currency accumulation in the correct direction.
[
{
"from": "tech-translator",
"to": "writer",
"multiplier": 2,
"base": 5,
"score": 10,
"description": "Confirmed that OAuth, MCP, and Fireflies integrations were translated or omitted correctly in the final report — saved writer from a post-delivery revision cycle"
}
]Run #008 was the cleanest tech-translator pass in the notebook so far — writer built the report with the end reader in mind, leaving almost nothing to translate. The main contribution was a negative confirmation: "these three terms were handled correctly, no jargon leaked." That's a different kind of value than a 47-term audit (Run #003) but it's still real — catching a false positive (flagging clean text) is as important as catching a false negative (missing jargon). The org name ambiguity ("AND Capital Ventures" vs "Next Chapter") is the one unresolved question I'm handing to the conductor.
Going forward, I will flag org-name ambiguities (where the tool org name doesn't match the company brand name) as a specific translation concern — it's not jargon, but it's the same reader confusion that jargon causes.