Separate monitoring from question generation and the interface
OtterlyAI documents these as different capabilities. Its monitoring guide says questions can be written in any language and are submitted as written, in the configured country context. Its prompt-research tool has a specified language list. Its dashboard documentation says the interface is English-only. Those statements describe three different parts of the job. Monitoring languages, prompt-research languages, dashboard language.
Peec's setup documentation separates markets into locations and languages when generating prompt suggestions. Its country guide says each prompt runs from one country, with several markets possible within a project's plan limit. Neither fact alone establishes that a translated question is suitable for the audience you intend to study. Peec prompt setup, country settings.
These examples were selected because their documentation makes the distinctions visible. They are not a ranking or a complete vendor shortlist. We have not established Gist's commercial language, interface or country entitlements for this purchase; require the same demonstration and written scope from us.
Scroll horizontally to read all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Capability | Evidence to request from every supplier | Decision it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Original question retained | Exact submitted text, language label and any translation or rewriting step | Can a reviewer establish what was asked? |
| Question suggestions | Supported generation languages and a sample reviewed by someone fluent in the intended market | Will the starting questions need substantial editorial work? |
| Market configuration | Engine, collection method and location saved beside each answer | Can language comparisons be kept separate from location changes? |
| Answer inspection | Original answer, cited URLs and a separately labeled translation if provided | Can the team check a claim against the wording that produced the score? |
| Team operation | Interface, export and report languages, plus the relevant permissions | Can the people responsible use and review the evidence? |
An unanswered requirement belongs in the purchase decision as unknown. It is not proof that the product lacks the capability, and a language count is not proof that every row above is supported.
Approve equivalent questions before comparing results
Consider a fictional team selling appointment software in Canada. It wants to compare an English question with a French question about the same scheduling problem. The team should agree on the service, constraints and intended decision before collection. A fluent reviewer can then check that the two questions ask for comparable help without copying English phrasing that sounds unnatural in French.
Give each language version its own row and use one shared identifier to link versions that ask for the same help. Record who reviewed the wording and preserve revisions. This is a proposed review process, not a claim that literal translation creates equivalent consumer demand. Researcher-written questions remain questions the team chose, even when they read naturally.
Scroll horizontally to read all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Illustrative comparison | Keep stable | Deliberately change | Interpret separately |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language comparison | Intended decision, configured country, engine and collection period | Reviewed English versus French wording | Answer language, named entities and actual cited URLs |
| Market comparison | Exact question and language, engine and collection period | Supported country setting | Local relevance and collection context |
| Editing check | Country and engine | One approved wording revision | Whether a changed question also changed the measured task |
These rows are a specification for a demonstration, not results. They do not isolate language as the cause of any difference: wording, collection behavior and normal answer variation still need review.
Make the report preserve the original evidence
Before committing, ask the supplier to open a non-confidential example and trace one summary score back to its original answer. Check how the record handles a response in an unexpected language, a local brand spelling, an ambiguous company name and an unavailable capture. Ask whether a translated display can be exported alongside the original text rather than replacing it.
Keep country, language and engine groups available in the report. A combined percentage can conceal a missing group or give a frequently collected group more influence. Agree on the counting and weighting rules, including how failed captures appear, before using that percentage to allocate work.
Finally, request a quote for the exact supported combinations and review access. This guide supplies no comparable price calculation because it does not verify the commercial terms for those combinations. Choose the product that can preserve and explain the observations your multilingual team needs, with the remaining gaps written into the decision.