An international buyer should not have to decide whether a short phrase describes a machine's capability or the method they are expected to use. Yet a sentence such as “Compare machines using remote monitoring” can leave exactly that question open. This is an invented editing example, not a statement about an actual product. It could ask the reader to compare machines through remote monitoring, or ask them to compare machines that have that capability.

Those interpretations are commercially different. One concerns a method of comparison; the other limits the product set. Choosing whichever version sounds smoother can add an unsupported feature or an unintended instruction. The ambiguity should be resolved before the sentence is polished, not passed to the next translator as a language problem.

A grammar choice can change the product claim

Google's style-guide changelog for 16 October records additional guidance on limiting participles and gerunds where they reduce clarity for a global audience. It specifically identifies ambiguous uses of using and suggests alternatives such as by using or that use. This is writing guidance, not a requirement to eliminate every word ending in -ing.

The useful distinction is the relationship being expressed. Does the reader perform the action with a tool? Does the product possess a feature? Does the phrase describe a condition under which the instruction applies? A concise sentence can omit too much of that relationship even when every technical term is familiar.

For the illustrative comparison sentence, “Compare machines that support remote monitoring” makes the product relationship explicit. It is appropriate only if the relevant machines actually support that function. The word support must come from a verified specification or an authorised product explanation, not from an editor trying to repair the grammar.

If the confirmed meaning is a comparison method, “Use remote monitoring to compare the machines” assigns that method directly to the reader. It still does not identify what is being compared. The technical owner must supply any necessary measurement object or test condition. A clearer verb order resolves the actor; it does not answer the remaining engineering question.

Give the product owner a precise question

For an overseas marketing team working with a Chinese manufacturer, sending back “please clarify” often creates another round of broad rewriting. A more useful query presents the two interpretations: does this phrase identify a feature of the selected models, or an action that the reader must perform? The product owner can then answer the actual point of uncertainty.

Keep the confirmed meaning with the revised sentence when the distinction affects selection or operation. This does not require a large editorial bureaucracy. A brief note explaining the actor and object is enough to prevent a later revision from restoring the original ambiguity in the name of brevity.

Not every compact expression needs expansion. Established technical names, exact interface labels and sentences with an unambiguous actor can remain compact. Concentrate effort on wording that changes who checks something, what component has a capability or what condition must be satisfied before an action. These are the places where a reader's alternative interpretation matters.

The issue is different from replacing a vague instruction such as “check carefully”. That problem concerns the object and observable result of the check, discussed in making product instructions specific. Here the missing information is the relationship between an action and the person or product performing it. More adjectives will not resolve that relationship.

Check each language without the other beside it

Once the meaning is confirmed, read the English version independently of the Chinese source. An English buyer may receive only a downloaded section or a link to one page. The sentence should not rely on the Chinese specification to reveal the actor that English leaves unstated.

The reverse check matters as well. A Chinese version that says only “using this method” may also depend on context that disappears in a short extract. Both versions should preserve the same verified relationship, even when they use different sentence structures. There is no need for their clauses to align word for word.

For further localisation, resolving the source ambiguity is more useful than asking each translator to make an independent guess. Keep model identifiers and technical terms consistent, while allowing the additional pronouns, relative clauses or conditional phrases that make the relationship explicit. Shorter is not automatically clearer, and a longer sentence is not automatically more precise.

The final reading test is simple: ask someone who did not draft the text who performs the action and which object has the capability. If both answers remain possible, return to the product meaning. Only after that decision should the wording become buyer-facing copy.

Sources