The basics of the Home step are covered, so we can close this ticket.
Although this ticket is marked as resolve, the sub-tasks will still capture work to be polished in this area. Currently these include:

In T363338#9796576, @ngkountas wrote:

Note: for related articles, when no thumbnail exists, a placeholder image is used, as demonstrated in the screenshot below (from greek wikipedia):

I guess that means we should also use the same placeholder for the automatic translation entrypoint card.

Another way to look into the above. If we were providing advice to translators on how to have a successful translation, it could be (in bold those points based on data that seem counter-intuitive):

Also, for future reference I wanted to capture in the ticket some of the quick take aways (feel free to correct if misinterpreting form the report):

• Selecting longer source articles to translate makes the translation more likely to be deleted.
• Publishing a longer translation as a result makes it less likely to be deleted.
• Translations with a higher percentage of human modifications makes the translation more likely to be deleted.
• Spending more time creating a translation makes it less likely to be deleted (for some user groups).
• Creating many articles during a short period of time (15 days) makes the translations more likely to be deleted.
• Selecting a source article that meets the standard quality criteria makes the translations more likely to be deleted.
• Having no machine translation available makes the translations more likely to be deleted.
• Making a translation as the user first edit makes the translations more likely to be deleted.
• Making a translation on mobile makes the translations more likely to be deleted.
• Publishing a translation into a smaller wiki makes it less likely to be deleted.
• Selecting a source article from a larger wiki makes the translations more likely to be deleted.

This is excellent. Thanks @KCVelaga!
The study surfaces some factors that we expected to have an impact in deletions (with the report providing a better understanding of how much they do), as well as, some counter-intuitive results that will help us think on new ideas.

Thanks for sharing the request. With disabling requests we want to be especially cautious. While some editors may find issues with the feature, being a frequently used feature suggests that other editors may find it useful.
We are happy to adjust the tool in the way that it better serves the whole community.

In T363569#9750679, @Doc_James wrote:

By the way, how long until the default is changed? We have a effort rolling out in Igbo right now. I am doing video conferences to try to teach people how to change the default themselves which is not ideal.

Currently the language team is exploring the use of machine translation to support reading contents form other languages (T359072). It may be interesting to explore how user interacting with a red link can surface options to create a new article(current behaviour) as well as accessing a machine translated version form other languages (a workflow which allows to also check the contents in those languages as well as transitioning to contribute a new article as better translation).

I created a sub-task specifically for the implementation of the instrumentation in case it helps to organize the development efforts: T364460: Implement the instrumentation to track usage of MinT in the Translate extension

A short-term solution we can consider for the MinT test instance is to apply only the language detection when there is enough content for it to be likely to be successful

We can consider this technical exploration complete. The approach is currently being applied as part of the Translation View (T359801) of the MinT for Wikipedia Readers MVP. Further developments will be made in the context of that ticket, or separate follow-ups as needed.