Doing some testing and reading the literature, it seems that the concept of CM systematically relies on the project document name metadata.

While this is efficient in case of "continuous localization process" i.e. update of same content name/structure, this seems quite unusual in most cases when even an updated document has a new name (generally v1, v2...).

In addition, a context could be fully identical from previous and/or next segment pov, while belonging to a different client file - the usual definition of a Context Match.

So I see practically no way in this circumstance to obtain 101 or 103% according to T5 approach.

Can you please confirm this analysis?

What are the drivers for this behavior?

Is there any setting that could be done to obtain 'standard' CMs only based on surrounding segments?



    CommentAdd your comment...