The most common single finding is not a mistranslation. It is a clause that exists in the Chinese text and simply is not in the English one.
Why this happens so often
Very few Chinese suppliers set out to deceive with a bilingual contract. What usually happens is more ordinary and just as expensive: the Chinese text is the real document, the English is produced afterwards by whoever in the office has the best English, and nobody reconciles the two once the negotiation moves on. Then a clause is amended in one language and not the other. Then the contract says the Chinese version governs — because the drafter is Chinese and that is the sensible default from their side — and the version you actually read becomes, in a dispute, a translation of no particular status.
None of that requires bad faith. It requires only that nobody ever read both columns at once. That is the entire service.
What we compare
Clause by clause, both directions
Every numbered clause and annex, matched across the two versions — including anything that has no counterpart on the other side.
The governing-version clause
What your contract says about which text prevails, where that clause sits, and whether it appears in both versions.
Numbers and dates
Quantities, prices, payment days, lead times, tolerances, penalty rates and expiry dates — the fields that diverge most quietly.
Names and identifiers
Whether the entity named in Chinese is the entity named in English, and whether either matches the chop and the bank details.
How we grade what we find
Not every difference matters, and a report that treats them all alike is useless. Every finding carries one of four grades:
| Grade | What it means | Typical example |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive | The two versions impose different obligations or different numbers | Payment 30 days in English, 45 in Chinese |
| One version only | Text exists in one language and has no counterpart in the other | A Chinese-only clause on tooling ownership |
| Governing version | Anything touching which text prevails, or an inconsistency in that clause itself | English says “both equally authentic”, Chinese says Chinese prevails |
| Wording | Different phrasing, same effect — listed for completeness, flagged as low priority | “shall deliver” vs “is to deliver” |
What this is not
It is not a contract review. We will not tell you that a liability cap is too low, that a jurisdiction clause is inconvenient, or that you should ask for a different Incoterm. Those are legal and commercial judgements, and we are a consultancy, not a law firm — see what we don’t do.
The report is built to be forwarded. A lawyer who does not read Chinese cannot advise you on a Chinese-governing text at all; one who does will spend billable hours finding exactly the differences this report already lists. Either way you are better off arriving with it than without it.
What people usually book alongside it
Contract Counterparty Check
Whether the company on the contract is real, whether the signatory can bind it, and whether the payment account is in the same name. From US$150.
Commercial Terms Extraction
Everything you agreed, pulled into one table and set beside what you thought you had agreed. From US$250.
Booked together, the version check and the counterparty check answer the two questions that account for most first-order losses in China sourcing: does this document say what I think it says, and is this company who it says it is.