Gile considers problems associated with signal vulnerability as the second major group of problems. The name might be somewhat misleading, as the group refers to those speech segments which require a lower amount of processing capacity, however, because of their short duration and/or low redundancy, they might pose problems for the interpreter. Numbers, short names or acronyms fall into this category.

The increased processing capacity requirement of problem triggers might result in a situation when interpreting requires more energy or attentional capacity than is available for the interpreter; the result is errors, omissions and/or infelicities (EOIs) (Gile, 2015b, p. 135).

Gile also provides an exhaustive list of coping strategies in SI (Gile, 1995; Kalina, 2015). The coping strategies compiled by Gile can be grouped into three groups: (1) Comprehension tactics, (2) Preventive tactics, and (3) Reformulation tactics.

Comprehension tactics include delaying the response, reconstructing the segment with the help of the context, using the boothmate’s help, and consulting documents in the booth. Preventive tactics are taking notes, changing the EVS, segmentation, and changing the order of elements in an enumeration. Reformulation tactics involve delaying the response, using the boothmate’s help, consulting documents in the booth, replacing a segment with a superordinate term or a more general speech segment, explaining or paraphrasing, reproducing the sound heard in the SL text, instant naturalization1, transcoding, informing delegates of the interpreting problem, referring delegates to another information source, omitting the information, parallel reformulation and switching off the microphone (Gile, 1995, pp. 191–201).

Gile (1995, pp. 201–204) also provides guidelines for selecting coping tactics in SI. He describes five rules that govern the use of coping tactics in SI. Rule 1 is Maximizing information recovery, in other words, it is the interpreter’s responsibility and decision to see what information can be omitted and what is to be rendered to the delegates. Rule 2 is Minimizing recovery interference, meaning that maximizing information recovery for one segment does not mean that the recovery of information for another segment is not in danger. In other words, interpreters have to find a balance between maximizing information recovery and minimizing recovery interference. Rule 3 is Maximizing the communication impact of the speech, which focuses on the interpreter’s credibility. Interpreter credibility is a key factor, which determines the use or non-use of certain coping tactics. For instance, an interpreter might not want to inform delegates of an interpreting problem too often, or interpreters might avoid the coping tactics of reproducing a sound heard in the SL text in the case of a name where such a solution could lead to a diplomatic problem. Rule 4 is the Law of the least effort, in other words, interpreters favour solutions or tactics that require the least time or processing capacity. Rule 5 is Self-protection, which states that interpreters might favour certain tactics over others in order to protect themselves (Gile, 1995).