Norwegian language expertise, applied to translation quality, technology evaluation, and reference material.
I work at the intersection of language quality and translation technology — reviewing translations, evaluating MT and LLM output, and building reference material that makes Norwegian localisation more consistent and more defensible.
My background is in software testing, which shapes how I approach language work: systematically, with an eye for where things break rather than where they pass. The goal is always to find the failure mode before it reaches the end user. This is a different orientation from a translator who reviews for correctness — it's closer to how a QA engineer thinks about a system.
I am a Norwegian native speaker. Most of my clients work in digital products — platforms, games, software — where Norwegian is one locale among many and the localisation process is engineered rather than artisanal. I work well with organisations that have strong internal infrastructure and need Norwegian language depth on demand, rather than those looking to fill a volume translation seat.
References are available on request.
Translation review, error taxonomy, severity assessment, structured feedback for translator development and vendor management.
MT quality assessment, LLM output evaluation, post-editing quality review. Norwegian-specific failure mode identification.
Style guides, glossaries, and terminology databases. Corpus-based. Written for translators and engineers who need clear decisions, not committee hedging.
Primary source research into evolving terminology — especially gaming, tech, and platform content where standard reference material lags behind actual usage.
I work best with clients who have a clear problem but an open brief — where the question is real and the methodology needs to be figured out rather than applied from a template. Standard QA work is straightforward; the more interesting engagements involve novel evaluation questions, unfamiliar domains, or workflows that are being built for the first time.
I adapt to existing tools and processes. If you use a specific CAT platform, QA tool, or annotation environment, I work within it. If the workflow is still being designed, I can contribute to that conversation — not as a project manager, but as someone who has seen where quality processes break down and where they hold.
Evaluation outputs are documented in a way that can be handed upward. A quality report that requires me to be in the room to explain it has not done its job.
Most engagements start with a short call or email exchange to establish fit. There's no intake form to fill out before that conversation.
Contact us