Publishing in English and Polish: an evidence-led editorial workflow

For a bilingual publishing project, our proposed starting point is a commissioning decision: what should each edition accomplish? Before requesting an English draft or a Polish draft, write the reader's question and the intended scope of the answer. Give each edition permission to choose its own structure, while requiring every factual statement to remain within the available evidence.

This guide sets out our proposed editorial workflow for that task. It uses a hypothetical pair of practical articles, rather than claiming that a particular product can perform the entire process. The suggested briefs, review records and approval rules are editorial recommendations. Where the guide describes Google's documentation or the Max AI registration page, it links to the supporting material.

Write a commissioning note for each reader

Google's content guidance asks creators to consider whether they have an intended audience, whether the material helps readers achieve their goal, and whether it adds original information or analysis rather than merely rewriting sources. Google's content assessment questions

Our proposed commissioning note has five fields: intended reader, immediate task, assumed knowledge, excluded subjects and completion question. For a hypothetical English edition, choose a reader reviewing an existing draft. For a Polish edition, you might instead commission an introduction for someone preparing a first draft. Treat these as deliberate project choices, without assuming that language determines experience.

If both editions serve the same reader task, keep that task identical. Allow differences only where the editor can explain them. We propose requiring a one-sentence reason for a different example or section order. Do not demand variation merely to make the articles look distinct.

Build an evidence ledger before drafting

Our proposed ledger gives each factual statement its own entry. Record the statement, source address, supporting passage, permitted scope and editions in which it will appear. Add a question field for anything the source leaves unresolved. Do not fill that field with a plausible answer.

Consider the limited evidence on a registration page. The supplied Max AI page describes the product as an operating system for AI agents, displays English and Polski among its language choices, and shows an invitation-checking message. It does not describe an article-production workflow. Max AI registration page

Under our proposed evidence convention, that page would support a description of those visible elements. We would require a separate source before describing research automation, publishing integrations or translation controls. Apply the same convention to examples: mark an invented scenario as hypothetical, and keep it separate from a reported customer experience.

Give AI a bounded assignment

Google identifies topic research and adding structure to original material as possible uses of generative AI. Its guidance also warns that generated output can contain inaccuracies and calls for manual checking before publication. Google's generative AI guidance

In our proposed workflow, assign a drafting tool a bounded task such as organizing approved notes or suggesting alternative outlines. Specify the evidence it may use, the audience it should address and the questions it must leave open. Do not ask it to supply missing product details from general knowledge.

A sample assignment would be: “Using only the approved ledger, outline an English article for a reviewer checking a bilingual draft. Attach an evidence entry to each proposed factual statement. Mark unsupported additions as questions.” Write a separate assignment for the Polish commission. Keep the two briefs available to the human editor throughout review.

Review each edition without its counterpart

We propose a first review in which the reviewer sees only one article and its commissioning note. Ask them to identify the main task, explain the recommended next step and mark any passage they cannot understand without extra context. Have them distinguish missing evidence from a preference about style.

For the English edition, our suggested review sheet asks whether examples are sufficiently specified, whether instructions name their inputs, and whether the conclusion answers the original question. For the Polish edition, commission its reviewer to develop an equivalent sheet suited to that article's brief. Do not require the same sentence order or paragraph count.

After this independent reading, ask each reviewer to nominate one passage for removal and one for expansion. Treat those nominations as proposals requiring editorial judgment. Keep the commissioning question visible when deciding whether to accept them. Our proposed acceptance rule is task coverage, supported statements and clear ownership of unresolved questions.

Compare commitments, then compare wording

Our proposed second review brings the editions together. Start with commitments: what does each article ask the reader to do, and what does it promise? Compare named features, required inputs, eligibility conditions and descriptions of outcomes wherever those appear. Check each factual difference against the evidence ledger.

Use three editorial categories: equivalent meaning, justified adaptation and unresolved discrepancy. Equivalent meaning needs no matching sentence structure. A justified adaptation needs a brief explanation tied to the commission. An unresolved discrepancy needs an owner and a specific decision before approval.

For example, imagine one hypothetical edition asks readers to prepare an outline while the other promises a complete publishable article. Under our convention, the editor must resolve that difference before release. Do not settle it by choosing the more appealing promise. Either document the broader statement or narrow the wording to the supported scope.

Plan language access as a separate release task

Google distinguishes multilingual sites, which offer more than one language, from multiregional sites, which explicitly target different countries. Its documentation recommends separate URLs for language versions, with hreflang annotations to help identify the appropriate version. Google's multilingual site guidance

Google also recommends links that let users choose another language version and advises against automatic redirection based on an assumed language. Language selection guidance

Our proposed release record assigns a planned address to each edition and names the person responsible for implementation. Record the language-switch labels and the intended counterpart page. Ask the implementer to check the technical annotations separately from the editorial sign-off. In our proposed acceptance check, open each address directly, follow the language link and confirm the destination against the release record.

Check the page beyond the article text

Google's recommendation to review AI-generated material extends to title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and image alternative text. Scope of Google's review guidance

Our proposed page review starts with the headline and description. Read them without the body and list every promise they make. Then compare that list with the approved article. Remove or substantiate any additional claim. Give visual captions and diagram labels the same treatment.

For an ordered workflow graphic, check that every step belongs to the approved recommendation. For a comparison, check that the options answer the same question and that each row has a value for every option. Write alternative text for the meaning of each localized visual, rather than requiring a word-for-word rendering of the other edition. Finally, check the call to action against the intended destination.

Close with a decision record

We propose ending the release process with a short decision record covering both editions. Include the accepted briefs, approved evidence entries, final addresses, open questions and the person authorizing publication. Record deliberate differences so that a future editor can understand why the editions diverge.

Where evidence is missing, choose an explicit editorial action: remove the statement, narrow it, request documentation or hold the affected passage. Do not treat a fluent draft as approval. Under our proposed convention, approval belongs to the named reviewer after the outstanding questions have been resolved.

For maintenance, nominate a concrete trigger for another review, such as a documented change to an instruction discussed in the article. Reopen the relevant evidence entries and inspect both editions. Close the assignment by asking whether each article still fulfils its own commission and whether every factual statement has an identifiable supporting source.