Bilingual Precision in RFCs: Translate 'cadrage' and 'arbitrage' in technical docs with confident, native-like phrasing

1) Disambiguate terms and common pitfalls

When French technical teams write in English, two abstract nouns frequently cause drift: cadrage and arbitrage. Both are routine in French management and engineering discourse, but neither maps neatly to a single English word. Misinterpreting them leads to documents that sound translated rather than authored for an English-speaking technical audience.

Start with cadrage. In French project culture, cadrage names the coordinated activity of defining the project’s perimeter, intentions, constraints, and boundaries before deep design begins. It also implies alignment: who agrees on what is in and out. The temptation is to render this as “framing,” because cadre and frame look similar. In native technical English, however, “framing” is broad, informal, and prone to ambiguity; it often means how you present or position an issue, not the rigorous technical delimitation needed in specifications or RFCs. Another tempting translation is “brief,” which can work in advertising or product marketing, but it feels light in standards-like prose. Finally, some writers try “cadrage document,” which becomes a calque: “cadrage” does not live naturally in English.

The precise English function of cadrage is best communicated through the vocabulary of scope and constraints. English RFCs and design docs codify the same activity with specific, stable labels: defining scope, out-of-scope items, assumptions, non-goals, and constraints. Together, these terms reproduce the practical work of cadrage without borrowing foreign abstractions. If you need a verb, “to scope” or “to define the scope” is conventional. If you need a section name, use “Scope,” “Constraints,” “Assumptions,” and “Non-goals”—the core quartet that anchors a well-scoped technical document.

Now consider arbitrage. In French technical contexts, arbitrage means a reasoned decision among competing options, often under constraints like time, cost, performance, or risk. It can also imply prioritization or a final call when stakeholders disagree. The literal English cognate “arbitration” is misleading in most technical documents. In English, “arbitration” evokes a formal legal or quasi-legal process to resolve disputes between parties through an external arbitrator. Using “arbitration” in an RFC context can suggest litigation rather than engineering judgement.

Instead, capture arbitrage with terms like trade-off, prioritization, decision, or decision on trade-offs. If needed, phrase it as “a prioritization call,” “a decision to trade X for Y,” or “a decision under constraints.” In engineering prose, “trade-off” is the atomic idea; it acknowledges that improving one dimension (latency, cost, resiliency) often worsens another. “Decision” and “choice” add clarity about agency: someone weighed the factors and chose. “Prioritize” or “prioritization” fits when the arbitrage concerns ordering or sequencing. Crucially, avoid “arbitration,” which misdirects readers to legal dispute resolution rather than design judgement.

Two cross-cutting pitfalls are worth naming:

• Over-abstract nouns that hide agency. French often tolerates nominalizations like “l’arbitrage a été fait.” In English technical prose, readers expect to know who decided and on what basis. Prefer “We decided,” “The team chose,” or “We prioritize.” This makes accountability explicit and clarifies the document’s authority.
• Calques that sound plausible but fuzzy. “Framing,” “arbitration,” “pilotage,” “functional perimeter,” “referential,” and “homologation” are common traps. Replace them with idiomatic equivalents: “scope,” “trade-off decision,” “governance,” “scope,” “reference,” and “certification/approval” depending on the domain.

The guiding principle: match the English function, not the French surface form. If the French term organizes thinking, translate it into the English set of sections, labels, and verbs that English-speaking engineers already use.

2) Native-like equivalents and collocations for RFC sections

English RFCs and design docs use a stable set of headings and collocations that carry precise meanings. Adopting these makes your writing feel native, predictable, and rigorous. They collectively perform the work of cadrage and record arbitrage decisions without exotic terminology.

Key section labels and what they signal:

• Scope: States what the design or change covers. This is the canonical label for cadrage at the highest level. It answers “What are we doing?”
• Out of Scope: States what the design explicitly does not cover. This protects the project from creep and clarifies reader expectations. It answers “What are we not doing now?”
• Non-goals: Names objectives that may sound attractive but are intentionally not pursued. “Non-goals” is stronger and more idiomatic than “not objectives.” It shows deliberate focus.
• Constraints: Lists external or internal limitations: compliance rules, deadlines, budget ceilings, existing protocols, performance SLOs, data residency laws, and so on.
• Assumptions: Declares what you believe to be true for the design to work: “the service runs in a VPC,” “clients support HTTP/2,” “feature flags are available.” Assumptions are testable and revisable.
• Rationale: Explains why the design looks the way it does. Rationale turns choices into reasoned decisions, drawing a clear line from constraints and goals to design outcomes.
• Trade-offs: Surfaces the specific dimension-by-dimension exchanges you make. It names both the upside and the cost. This is the English nucleus for arbitrage.
• Alternatives Considered: Shows that you evaluated options and explains why they were rejected. This section builds credibility and institutional memory.
• Decision Record: Captures the final call, the date, and the deciders. It may also record reversibility and review triggers. Think of it as a compact log of arbitrage results.
• Open Questions: Lists unresolved points. This is honest status reporting and invites focused review.

Recommended verb patterns that embody agency and clarity while preserving the neutral tone of an RFC:

• We decide / We chose / We will: Clear, measured authority. Use when the document records settled decisions.
• We propose / We recommend: Appropriate when the document is for review and the decision is pending.
• We defer / We will revisit: Shows prudence and signals a conscious boundary; this sits naturally in “Out of Scope” or “Non-goals.”
• We prioritize X over Y: Encodes an arbitrage in a single, transparent sentence.
• We accept (risk/cost) to gain (benefit): Classic trade-off framing that avoids grandstanding and keeps a technical tone.

Avoid vague or rhetorical verbs like “address,” “tackle,” or “cover” when precision is needed. Replace them with the exact action: define scope, declare constraints, select option, reject alternative, postpone work, or escalate a dependency.

Notice how these collocations produce a composable vocabulary: Scope pairs with Out of Scope; Constraints pair with Trade-offs and Rationale; Alternatives Considered complements Decision Record; Non-goals and Assumptions can be tested later; Open Questions channels review energy. Together they create an RFC voice that sounds native and disciplined.

3) Practice micro-translations and upgrades from FR→EN snippets

Although we are not presenting examples, it is helpful to internalize the upgrade path from French abstractions to English RFC idiom. The mental steps are consistent and teachable.

First, identify whether the French sentence is doing cadrage or arbitrage work—or both. If it defines what will be addressed and what will not, it belongs to scope and constraints. If it chooses among options or sets priorities, it belongs to trade-offs, decision record, or rationale. This classification directs your vocabulary.

Second, strip away nominalizations that obscure agency. If you see “un arbitrage,” ask: who decided, and on what basis? If you see “le cadrage,” ask: what exactly is being scoped—functional boundaries, interfaces, performance targets, compliance needs? The resulting English will use crisp verbs and concrete nouns that tie to the document’s structure.

Third, map to the canonical section labels. French often nests cadrage elements inside a single heading. In English, split them across Scope, Out of Scope, Non-goals, Constraints, and Assumptions. This division increases clarity and reduces repetition. Arbitrage content splits across Trade-offs, Alternatives Considered, Rationale, and Decision Record.

Fourth, normalize tone. French can accept elevated, even ceremonial phrasing for alignment (“le cadrage a été validé,” “un arbitrage sera nécessaire”). English technical readers prefer neutral, compact sentences that state facts and decisions. Use “We validated the scope with X” or “A decision will be required on Y” only if you also indicate who will decide and when.

Fifth, ensure that risk, cost, and benefit are spelled out. Arbitrage in English reads as a ledger: what you gain, what you pay, and why the exchange is acceptable. Tie these to constraints and goals. This alignment transforms opinion into rationale.

Finally, close the loop with document hygiene. Each arbitrage should leave a footprint: a line in the Decision Record, references to the constraints that forced the choice, and any follow-up in Open Questions or Non-goals if you deferred work. This persistent structure is how English RFCs convert decision-making into institutional memory.

4) Apply a mini-template to draft sentences translating cadrage and arbitrage with confident tone

Use a repeatable mini-template to produce native-like, RFC-grade sentences whenever you encounter cadrage or arbitrage in French source material. The goal is to sound decisive, measured, and transparent.

For cadrage (scope and constraints):

• Begin with a Scope statement that names the system boundary and the immediate objective. Prefer simple present tense for durable truth in specs, or future if the work is planned.
• Follow with Out of Scope to preempt misinterpretation. Mark deferrals explicitly.
• Add Constraints and Assumptions to expose the conditions that shape design choices. Keep each constraint discrete and verifiable.
• If needed, append Non-goals to steer readers away from attractive-but-distracting ambitions.

For arbitrage (trade-off decisions and prioritization):

• State the decision with a verb that reveals agency: “We choose,” “We decide,” “We prioritize.” Name the alternatives or dimensions being traded.
• Provide Rationale in one or two sentences that connect constraints to the chosen option. Cite the key factors, not every factor.
• Record the Trade-offs explicitly: articulate both the benefit and the cost. Avoid evaluative adjectives without metrics; ground the trade-off in impact on latency, cost, reliability, operability, compliance, or user experience.
• Log the decision and any triggers for reevaluation in the Decision Record. This adds clarity on reversibility and monitoring.
• List Open Questions that must be resolved before the decision is final, or to be revisited in a future iteration.

Tone and modality guidelines to sustain confident, native-like phrasing:

• Use declarative sentences and avoid hedging where a decision exists. “We will” and “We choose” signal accountability and reduce ambiguity.
• Reserve imperatives for normative requirements or protocol compliance. In an RFC-like style, imperatives belong to “MUST,” “SHOULD,” “MAY” contexts. Elsewhere, prefer descriptive statements.
• When a choice is provisional, mark it as such: “We propose,” “We intend,” or “We plan,” paired with the condition for confirmation.
• When deferring an item, name the trigger that will bring it back: a metric threshold, a dependency resolution, or a timeline checkpoint.
• Ensure consistency of nouns across the document. If you use “constraints,” do not switch to “limitations” or “restrictions” midstream unless you deliberately distinguish categories.

By internalizing this mini-template, you make your translations predictable and auditable. Reviewers can navigate straight to Scope to understand boundaries, to Out of Scope to avoid scope creep, to Constraints and Assumptions to understand context, and to Trade-offs and Decision Record to see how arbitrage unfolded. Your prose, therefore, does not merely translate French abstractions; it reconstitutes them into the English document architecture that engineers expect.

Why this approach works

French technical abstractions are compact and elegant within their own ecosystem. But English technical writing has forged a different toolset: granular headings, explicit agency, and a bias toward traceable decisions. By translating the function of cadrage into scope, constraints, assumptions, non-goals and the function of arbitrage into trade-offs, prioritization, decision records, and rationale, you align with those expectations. This alignment yields immediate benefits:

• Clarity: Readers quickly locate the information they need without decoding cultural abstractions.
• Authority: Decisive verbs and explicit agency increase trust in the document.
• Reusability: Stable collocations standardize how your organization records decisions and boundaries.
• Maintainability: Future teams can revisit the Decision Record and Trade-offs sections to understand why choices were made and whether conditions have changed.

Ultimately, the goal is not to ban French terms but to represent their underlying work in the idiom of English RFCs. When you do, you avoid false friends like “framing” and “arbitration,” and you gain a practical, native-like voice that travels well across teams, companies, and time. This is bilingual precision: honoring the original intent while speaking the target language of engineering with confidence and precision.