Practical chatbot guides · Requirements planning
Prepare Your Content for a Multilingual Chatbot
Prepare a proposed chatbot language with a terminology worksheet, six-scenario readiness matrix, bilingual review cases, and a clear launch decision.
A translated greeting is not a supported customer journey
FastChats describes using approved business material and guiding visitors toward next steps or human handoff. Its industries hub includes custom planning around FAQs, intake, and follow-up. [F02], [F03], [F04] Those descriptions are a starting point for requirements, not evidence of multilingual functionality.
Editorial recommendation: choose one proposed language, a bounded set of services, a reviewer competent in that language, and a real follow-up owner. A friendly greeting is not enough if the next answer changes service limits or the team cannot handle the resulting inquiry.
Choose the smallest supportable scope
For the hypothetical worksheets below, the proposal is an English source with a Spanish customer-facing path for routine service FAQs only. Spanish is a planning choice, not a claim that FastChats supports it. The reviewer and follow-up owner have not been assigned, so the worked example is not ready to launch.
Keep booking commitments, service regions, turnaround times, and exceptions identical in meaning to the approved source. If only a reviewed contact path is feasible, offer that narrower path only after its wording and operational capacity are approved. Do not promise an interpreter or bilingual employee who has not been confirmed.
Prepare approved terminology without inventing translations
Filled planning example; all target wording remains pending reviewer approval. Assign actual names and review dates before treating this as approved copy. The owner roles below are proposed responsibilities, not claims about existing staff.
On a narrow screen, focus this table area and use the arrow keys to scroll sideways.
| Source answer ID / term type | Source term or rule | Proposed target wording | Do-not-translate terms | Owner / review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TERM-01 / Service name | Use the service catalog’s exact “maintenance visit” meaning; no repair promise | Pending reviewer approval | Approved service identifiers | Service owner + language reviewer unassigned / pending |
| TERM-02 / Brand or proper name | Keep the business’s approved public brand spelling | Pending reviewer approval of surrounding sentence | Business brand and proper names | Brand owner + language reviewer unassigned / pending |
| TERM-03 / Contact detail | Copy the approved public phone or email exactly; no example customer data | Pending reviewer approval of contact instructions | Verified phone, email, and public URL | Contact-route owner + language reviewer unassigned / pending |
| TERM-04 / Ambiguous phrase | “Next Friday afternoon” needs an explicit date, time range, and time zone before commitment | Pending reviewer approval of clarification question | Confirmed date/time values; do not infer them | Service owner + language reviewer unassigned / pending |
Microsoft Custom Translator documents paired phrases or sentences and corresponding translations in a dictionary. Its phrase-dictionary guidance warns that substitution can limit surrounding context. [F09], [F10] This is a clearly attributed provider example, not a choice of vendor or a description of FastChats architecture. Our recommendation is to review complete conversations; a terminology list alone is not approval of the finished answer.
A worked language-readiness matrix
Hypothetical recommendations, not deployed behavior. The six scenario decisions are filled in below. Every row is blocked because target wording, a competent reviewer, and follow-up ownership still require approval.
On a narrow screen, focus this table area and use the arrow keys to scroll sideways.
| Scenario | Source answer | Language / reviewer | Risk | Permitted reply / next step | Launch status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal FAQ | FAQ-01: explain only the approved routine service | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Expanded service promise | Use reviewed wording with the same inclusions and limits | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
| Unavailable service | FAQ-02: the requested service is not offered | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Translation implies availability | State unavailability; offer only an approved relevant contact path | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
| Ambiguous date/time | FAQ-03: ask for clarification before confirming a date | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Different calendar date or time zone inferred | Ask for an explicit date, time range, and time zone; do not book | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
| Human follow-up | FAQ-04: use the approved contact route without a response-time promise | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Unstaffed language path advertised | Explain the verified contact path and its reviewed limits | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
| Unsupported language | FAQ-05: explain the available contact option | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Reply implies support for the requested language | Use approved fallback wording; do not claim an interpreter | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
| Customer correction | FAQ-06: correct contact information before any next step | Proposed Spanish / competent reviewer unassigned | Old or mistranslated contact value persists | Acknowledge the correction; confirm the intended value through the approved process | NO LAUNCH — target copy and owner approval pending |
Six complete-conversation review cases
For each case, give a competent reviewer the approved English source, the proposed target-language conversation, and the actual follow-up path. Ask the reviewer to compare meaning across both languages, including the final next step. Use fictional prompts without personal data. These are six proposed bilingual review cases, not completed translation tests.
Review case 1: Normal FAQ
Source to compare: FAQ-01: explain only the approved routine service.
Expected meaning: Service scope remains identical; no added promise.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Review case 2: Unavailable service
Source to compare: FAQ-02: the requested service is not offered.
Expected meaning: Unavailability is explicit and not softened into a booking offer.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Review case 3: Ambiguous date/time
Source to compare: FAQ-03: ask for clarification before confirming a date.
Expected meaning: Uncertainty remains visible; no inferred commitment.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Review case 4: Human follow-up
Source to compare: FAQ-04: use the approved contact route without a response-time promise.
Expected meaning: No invented bilingual staff, interpreter, availability, or response time.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Review case 5: Unsupported language
Source to compare: FAQ-05: explain the available contact option.
Expected meaning: The supported scope is clear and no new language promise appears.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Review case 6: Customer correction
Source to compare: FAQ-06: correct contact information before any next step.
Expected meaning: The corrected value, not the earlier one, is used; no invented data.
Reviewer pass/fail: NOT RUN — pending competent reviewer. Record PASS only when the entire conversation preserves meaning and the permitted follow-up; otherwise record FAIL, the discrepancy, owner, and retest result.
Supporting implementation note: language metadata
W3C internationalization guidance recommends a default language attribute on the HTML element and a language attribute around content that changes language. [F11], [F12] The lang attribute identifies content; it does not translate content. For example, this English article declares lang="en". Metadata alone does not establish accessibility conformance, and this guide makes no blanket WCAG compliance statement.
A filled launch / no-launch decision
- Proposed scope
- Spanish routine service FAQs, bounded by the existing English source answers; no expanded service promises.
- Content approval
- Pending target wording and a competent reviewer for all six scenarios.
- Follow-up capacity
- Unconfirmed; assign an accountable person and verify the available contact route before offering it.
- Decision
- NO LAUNCH. Do not advertise this proposed language path while these gates remain unresolved.
- Narrower option
- Consider only a reviewed contact-path message if its wording, capability, and operational owner are confirmed. Otherwise retain the currently approved path.
Recommended release rule: record the source version, approved target wording, reviewer name, review date, follow-up owner, and PASS/FAIL for each complete conversation. Launch only the scope those records support. Re-review changed source answers in every offered language.
Related planning guides
Sources and claim boundaries
- F02 — FC02: FastChats describes guided next steps and human handoff. Does not establish a payment integration or any particular live deployment.
- F03 — FC02: FastChats describes building from approved business material. No claim of a multilingual feature, language count or translation vendor.
- F04 — FC03: The industries hub includes custom industry planning. Do not promise every proposed capability is available without scoping.
- F09 — MS01: Microsoft Custom Translator documents paired terminology dictionaries. Attribute product-specific behavior to Microsoft; use only as context for an editorial business terminology worksheet, not FastChats functionality.
- F10 — MS01: Microsoft warns that phrase substitution can limit surrounding translation context. This is about Microsoft phrase dictionaries; not an empirical claim about all LLM translation or proof that a glossary guarantees quality.
- F11 — W3C01: W3C internationalization guidance recommends declaring the default page language. Markup identifies language; it does not translate content or establish accessibility conformance.
- F12 — W3C01: W3C recommends identifying language changes in content markup. Supporting implementation note only, not a second general accessibility checklist.
- F13 — FC14: The contact page is a suitable planning CTA destination. Read-only destination check; no form submission, demo exercise, or delivery verification performed.
Plan only what your business can support
Bring your source material, proposed boundaries, and unresolved ownership questions to a planning conversation. The contact page invites you to map the assistant your business needs. [F13]