The quality of translations/post-edited text is often expressed in error numbers. However, it is not only the number of errors that is of interest to researchers but their nature, too. That is, there is a growing interest among researchers to reveal the characteristics of post-edited texts (also referred to as post-editese, see Toral, 2019) and to show error-types that are more common in PE than in HT. Thus far, a number of studies have indicated that such differences between PE and HT texts do exist: Čulo and Nitzke (2016) found that HT texts were characterised by more accurate terminology use than PE texts. Carl and Schaeffer (2017) suggested that PE might lead to more literal translations than HT, and Bangalore et al. (2015) reported that sentences in PE show less syntactic variation than in HT. In a unique experiment, Lin and her colleagues tried to build models that correct human translation errors (Lin et al., 2022). As a first step, they identified how human errors differ from MT errors and found that humans exhibit a more diverse range of errors, but they make far fewer fluency errors than MT. Finally, Toral (2019) has shown that PEs can be characterised by simplification, normalisation and interference. In contrast, Daems et al. (2017) found no evidence of post-editese in their study.