## 3 Materials and Methods
### Analysis
A high correlation between the two evaluations suggests that the translations are similar in global quality, implying they may share strengths or weaknesses in similar areas (e.g., fidelity to the original meaning or fluency). Conversely, a low correlation indicates that the translations differ considerably in terms of the assessed quality aspects. This could suggest that one translation excels in some areas while another may perform better in different contexts. The analysis of statistically significant differences in evaluation scores allows for the identification of objectively superior or inferior translations in terms of the evaluated aspects (such as fidelity, fluency, accuracy, and semantics). Failure to identify statistically significant differences implies that the metrics are unable to conclusively distinguish between translations. In conclusion, the analysis reveals the following patterns in translation quality assessment: First, when a high correlation is observed alongside the absence of significant differences, the translations are likely to exhibit similar quality, reflecting comparable translation strategies. Second, when a low correlation and significant differences are present, the translations tend to display substantially different quality levels. Third, when a high correlation is coupled with significant differences, the translations demonstrate similar quality variations across the evaluated aspects, with one translation consistently outperforming the others. Lastly, when a low correlation is observed without significant differences, it suggests that the metric may not be effectively capturing the quality disparities between the translations. To quantify consistency, the evaluation scores of each translation, using INCIBE's translation as the reference, were compared using statistical inference methods. Initially,a normality test was conducted. If the result indicated normality, paired samples were compared using Student's \(t\)-test. If the normality test failed, [PERSON]'s test was employed. To assess the correlation between translation evaluation scores, Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated. A significance level of \(\alpha=0.05\) was chosen. Following the statistical analysis, a consistency score for each translator was computed as follows:  
1. Translations that exhibit statistically significant differences in any of the comparisons are awarded one point, signifying that these translations demonstrate distinct performance according to the evaluated metrics. This suggests that one translation is significantly superior or inferior to another. 2. Translations that do not show significant differences are not awarded points, as there is insufficient evidence to suggest that their quality differs significantly based on the metrics. 3. Translations with significant and high correlations in the range [0.5, 1] do not receive any additional points, as such correlations imply that the translations do not differ substantially in terms of quality. The interval [\(-1\), \(-0.5\)] is excluded, as only TER operates inversely, and its final evaluation has been adjusted accordingly. 4. Translations exhibiting correlations in the range (\(-0.5\), \(0.5\)) or non-significant correlations (\(p\geq 0.05\)) are assigned one point. These points are not awarded more than once. This scoring system is based on the performance differences between translations, but these differences do not directly indicate that one translation is inherently better than another. Instead, they highlight variations in translation behavior according to the evaluated metrics. Translations with more significant differences may indicate poorer quality in some cases. To complement this evaluation, a ranking is provided, which assesses adherence to the translation style presented by INCIBE. This ranking is calculated based on the average scores obtained from all metrics, using INCIBE's translations as the reference.