Out of curiousity, and I do not mean to cast doubt on Ven Anālayo’s judgement or your suspicions, but if I may ask, ayya, what is the criterion for what makes this translation of dubious quality?
I ask because there are several metrics by which to judge the text, and there are several metrics through which an interpreter/translator can interpret/translate the text.
For instance, from my own novice experience looking at the Buddhist Chinese of the āgamāḥ, when consulting dictionaries of Buddhist Chinese, the stratified layers in the language do not correspond. For instance, a technical term in the vocabulary of a Buddhist sūtra translated ~200AD will be retained, but will have a different technical meaning altogether in sūtrāṇi translated in ~4-500AD.
There is a tradition in China to treat the older material ( ~200AD etc) as newer material (~4-500AD), conflating the different stratified layers of Buddhist Chinese on occasion.
For instance, from SA 296 (Paccayasutta-parallel):
若佛出世,若未出世,此法常住,法住法界,彼如來自覺知,成等正覺,
Whether or not one is a Mahāyāna Buddhist reading these texts (and translating) them will effect how one treats, understands, and renders the 法界 here, as “dharma realms”, as phenomenological realms, or as dharmadhātu.
Is the translation suspect because the “reading” of the text is a Mahāyāna reading? Similarly, is the translation suspect because the translator was only familiar with the Chinese, not with the Indic parallels, and thus is not a translation that takes full advantage of information that can be gleaned from EBT-parallels? Or is the translation simply a poor job by a translator of lesser accomplishment at this stage?