Then looked back at the two documents.
She remained uncomfortable.
Approval of a revised document did not eliminate the discrepancy.
If one party believed it was agreeing to a joint-approval reserve and the other document appeared to weaken that requirement, the difference mattered.
She sent a second email.
This time, she asked whether the Thai investor's legal team had specifically approved the change.
No answer came.
Two days later, the agency supervisor called.
His tone was impatient.
"You're making this more complicated than necessary."
The interpreter sat beside her mother's medical paperwork.
"I'm asking whether the two versions reflect the same authorization requirement."
"They're business documents."
"I know."
"Then let the lawyers deal with it."
She took a breath.
"I'm not giving legal advice. I'm identifying a language discrepancy."
The supervisor sighed.
"The client is paying us to facilitate communication."
She remained calm.
"Accurate communication."
There was a long silence.
Then he said coldly, "You need to understand that clients don't appreciate interpreters interfering with negotiations."
The young woman looked toward her desk.
For several seconds, she said nothing.
Finally, she answered.
"If the two versions differ materially, the parties should know."
The supervisor ended the call shortly afterward.
She sat motionless.
Then saved a copy of her professional incident report within the agency's authorized reporting system.
She did not take confidential documents for personal use.
She did not contact journalists.
She did not accuse anyone of fraud.
She simply recorded that the document versions appeared inconsistent and requested formal clarification.
A week later, she was removed from the assignment.
The removal happened through an email.
No meeting.
No explanation that answered her questions.
Just a short message informing her that the client had requested a different language professional for the remainder of the project.
The agency thanked her for her work.
Then stated that future assignments would be offered as available.
She stared at the screen.
For several seconds, she felt nothing.
Then anger rose.
She had spent years studying.
Training.
Practicing.
Preparing for difficult conversations.
She knew interpreting ethics demanded accuracy.
Yet the first time she insisted that two important clauses did not match, she lost the assignment.
She called her supervisor.
He answered reluctantly.
"Yes?"
She took a breath.
"Can you tell me why I was removed?"
He sighed.
"The client requested a change."
"Because of the reserve clause?"
"I can't discuss internal client preferences."
She looked toward the email.
"I reported a potential mistranslation."
He became impatient.
"And that report was received."
"Was it investigated?"
A pause.