Identify where language appears
Document language may differ from the language of product names, table headings, handwritten notes, or attachments. Define the granularity of language metadata and whether mixed-language examples are required. Avoid treating an export’s country field as reliable evidence of the language visible in each document.
Include formatting conventions
Dates, decimal separators, address formats, currency placement, and units can vary alongside language. Supply examples of the normalized outputs you need while preserving source strings. Ask reviewers to flag ambiguous interpretations rather than silently applying one region’s conventions to every record in the collection.
Measure independent coverage
Request counts by language, document type, source organization, and layout family. A language represented by one recurring template offers limited evidence of broader capability. Include quality conditions such as scans and small print so language slices are not confounded with very different levels of visual difficulty.
Plan evaluation and review
Define which languages need human reference labels and how disagreement will be resolved. Evaluate extraction and retrieval separately for each important language slice. Send Fiund the language combinations, document roles, formatting requirements, and source-review expectations that matter to your deployment so feasibility can be assessed without assuming universal coverage. A concrete review pair can contain the same business document type in two languages with different date and decimal conventions. Ask reviewers to produce the same output schema while retaining the original strings. Compare the decisions and record any ambiguity instead of assuming a shared schema removes the need for language-specific interpretation.
Review checklist
- Separate document and field language
- Define date and numeric interpretation
- Count language by source and template
- Specify reference-label review per language