Because post-editing only involves restoring punctuation and spelling.

Because corpus tools are more important than any form of revision.

Because machine translation can never produce grammatically correct text.

Because human judgment is needed to evaluate adequacy, tone, cultural fit, and communicative consequence.

The case shows that audiovisual translation is identical to literary translation.

The subtitler is simply failing to understand the source text.

The case proves that subtitles should always preserve all features of speech.

The case illustrates constrained translation in a multimodal environment.

It excludes verbal transfer in favour of interface design.

It adapts a whole communicative product to a locale.

It functions as a freer synonym for literary adaptation.

It applies mainly to printed instructional materials.

The translator’s legal option to remain unnamed in publication.

The absence of translator commentary in scholarly editions.

The translator’s cultural position in contexts that privilege fluent mediation.

The omission of the translator’s name from cover design and metadata.

By proving that foreignization and literal translation are exactly the same in all contexts.

By identifying the textual operations through which assimilation occurs. 

By rejecting all discussion of textual form and focusing only on publishing politics.

By arguing that translators should avoid intervention altogether.

AVT removes the need for genre-sensitive decision-making.

AVT deals only with subtitles and dubbing conventions. 

AVT works within a multimodal environment of image, sound, and timing.

AVT prioritizes sound over meaning in every context. 

Because translators no longer influence final textual form.

Because the source text loses all relevance after commissioning.

Because translation now happens only in collaborative software.

Because multiple agents shape selection, framing, circulation, and reception.