Compare two InDesign files after translation: seeking IDML testers

I'm developing an IDML comparison tool and also sell InDesign scripts on aescripts. This trial is free; I plan to offer a paid version. I'm seeking feedback from people who can test an unsigned Windows 64-bit build locally on a real translation job.

This closed 2020 thread (https://community.adobe.com/t5/indesign-discussions/text-compare-between-two-indesign-files/m-p/10894167) suggested Acrobat's PDF comparison and Track Changes for comparing InDesign text. My related question comes from years of translation work: after a document comes back from translation, what changed structurally, and is anything missing?

The tool compares the source IDML and the returned IDML for:

- missing stories, text frames and tables where a match can be established; emptied story or table-cell text; changes in footnote and anchored-object counts per story

- changes in paragraph counts, table row and column counts, applied paragraph styles, and the sequence of character styles within a paragraph

- paragraphs, footnotes and table cells whose text is still identical to the source, subject to a word-count threshold (short unchanged text and untranslated text mixed into an otherwise translated paragraph are not reported, and the check is ineffective for text without word spaces, such as Japanese or Chinese)

The comparison runs without launching InDesign, reads the two IDML files without modifying them, and sends nothing over the network. It does not assess translation quality, layout geometry, images or links. Every report lists what was checked and what was not compared, even when it found nothing.

Testing so far has used synthetic documents, not real translation jobs. I'm asking for feedback, not copies of your files or reports.

The trial and Quick Start are on GitHub Releases: https://github.com/linguist-coder/localisation-qa/releases/latest . Because the build is unsigned, Windows may show an Open File security warning or a SmartScreen warning; the Quick Start covers both. The trial runs all checks and counts every finding; it shows one finding per rule with its page, object and content, and lists the rest by rule only. Re-running the same pair does not reveal more details. The included sample pair has planted defects and always produces a full report, so you can try it before using your own files.

Two limits matter before you try it:

1. IDML only. It does not read INDD. You need the source and returned versions as IDML, exported from InDesign if necessary.

2. Matching depends on identifiers. The tool uses labels added by the included script, or InDesign's internal IDs when labels are absent. In a tested workflow using Okapi, internal IDs survived the translation round trip; they were reassigned when the IDML was then opened in InDesign and re-exported. An existing pair without labels may therefore have objects that cannot be matched; these are reported as "could not be compared", not as clean. For future jobs, run the included script in InDesign before exporting the source IDML you send out; matching then uses those labels if the returned file retains them.

If you try it, a brief reply to these four questions would help:

1. Did you use files from a real translation job, or only the sample?

2. Did ZIP extraction, launch and analysis all complete? If not, where did it stop?

3. How do you currently check returned files?

4. Did it show anything your current check had missed? "No" or "couldn't tell" is useful too; please mention any false alarms.