I know this new error type has been around for a while, but I've just returned to Gengo after months of frustrated absence, and I looked but could not find this issue raised by someone else here in the forum.
My question is this: In my experience, the glossary that customers give Gengo to display besides the workbench can only ever be used as a rough guideline and the glossary mismatch errors that the system marks automatically have to be ignored in most cases. The reason is that the glossary translations are often terms that only work in a very specific context and the text you're currently translating uses the same English word in another, more general context. And even if the suggested translation word is correct in meaning for the given context, the grammatical structure of the word registered in the glossary almost never fits into the sentence and even such minor modifications are marked as errors. And sometimes the glossary translation is simply misspelled or a bad word choice for what the customer actually wants. (I.e., they picked it out of a dictionary without consulting a native speaker or they got it from a previous translator who wasn't given enough context to chose the right translation term and guessed wrongly.)
Now, previously I would just write a more fitting translation if the glossary term isn't working in the context of the given text, and point out the error to the customer if the problem was more than a grammatical adjustment. (I've never seen the customer actually bothering to fix the glossary, though, since this problem usually occurs with customer service emails for larger companies, where the translation texts get accepted automatically and probably no-one ever even reads the translator comments.)
However, with this new GoCheck error type, and the fact that you elsewhere write that the reviewers have no influence on the resulting score, I worry that every mismatch between the glossary and the translation text will automatically be marked as a "compliance error" by the system, even if sticking to the glossary term would make no grammatical sense. And I worry that the reviewer could not even tell the system not to count this as an error if they agree that the translator had to change the translation term.
Is this how this works out in the end? Because if that's the case, I'm never accepting translation jobs with in-system customer glossaries again.