Download the editable Migration Risk Checklist
The file is designed for real review work, with structured fields, ownership prompts, status controls, and space for evidence.
What this file is for
This migration risk checklist helps a buying team identify data, mapping, permission, integration, cutover, validation, and rollback risks before migration. It is most useful when several functions need to contribute facts but one person must maintain a single decision record. The working question is whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Keeping that question visible prevents the team from collecting documents and comments that never change the decision.
Use the file before approval, and return to it whenever scope, quantities, data handling, delivery timing, or contract terms change. The expected coordinator is the migration lead, with input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists. The tool does not replace legal, security, privacy, finance, or technical judgment. It makes each judgment traceable to evidence and an accountable owner.
What the download contains
| # | Working area | How to complete it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Source Object And Volume | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 2 | Target Mapping And Transformation | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 3 | Permission And Ownership Rule | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 4 | Validation Sample And Tolerance | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 5 | Cutover Dependency And Rollback Trigger | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 6 | Risk Owner And Closure Evidence | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
The file also includes instructions, status choices, review notes, and a signoff area. Blank fields are intentional: they should be completed from the documents and tests for the actual purchase. Do not copy a previous vendor's answers unless the underlying facts are still current and apply to the same service scope.
Field-by-field review guide
Source Object And Volume
Treat source object and volume as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check source object and volume against target mapping and transformation, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is assuming export and import schemas align. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed source object and volume record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Target Mapping And Transformation
Treat target mapping and transformation as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check target mapping and transformation against permission and ownership rule, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is testing with a clean sample that hides production exceptions. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed target mapping and transformation record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Permission And Ownership Rule
Treat permission and ownership rule as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check permission and ownership rule against validation sample and tolerance, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is migrating attachments without links or permissions. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed permission and ownership rule record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Validation Sample And Tolerance
Treat validation sample and tolerance as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check validation sample and tolerance against cutover dependency and rollback trigger, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is declaring success before business reconciliation. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed validation sample and tolerance record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Cutover Dependency And Rollback Trigger
Treat cutover dependency and rollback trigger as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check cutover dependency and rollback trigger against risk owner and closure evidence, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is assuming export and import schemas align. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed cutover dependency and rollback trigger record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Risk Owner And Closure Evidence
Treat risk owner and closure evidence as a decision input in the migration risk checklist, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for whether the migration design is testable and safe enough to enter production cutover. Ask the migration lead to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check risk owner and closure evidence against source object and volume, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from data owners, administrators, integration owners, security, records management, business testers, and vendor specialists should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is testing with a clean sample that hides production exceptions. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed risk owner and closure evidence record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Decision rules
- Inventory unsupported objects before finalizing scope.
- Test permissions and audit history, not only record counts.
- Define a reconciliation tolerance for every material data class.
- Require a timed rollback decision and accountable approver.
Common failure modes
- Avoid assuming export and import schemas align.
- Avoid testing with a clean sample that hides production exceptions.
- Avoid migrating attachments without links or permissions.
- Avoid declaring success before business reconciliation.
Evidence and signoff standard
A defensible file should let a later reviewer reconstruct the decision without relying on memory. For every material item, capture the source document or test, the date reviewed, the person responsible, and the next action. If evidence is restricted, record its approved location and a short conclusion rather than attaching it to an uncontrolled copy. If a vendor answer changes, preserve the final accepted version and note what superseded the earlier response.
Before signoff, verify that the record covers source object and volume, target mapping and transformation, permission and ownership rule, validation sample and tolerance, cutover dependency and rollback trigger, and risk owner and closure evidence. Resolve critical gaps or document a time-limited exception. The final approver should understand both the desired outcome and the residual risk. Store the signed or approved copy with the contract, quote, implementation decision, or service inventory entry that it supports.
Questions to ask before approval
- What evidence supports the entry for source object and volume?
- What evidence supports the entry for target mapping and transformation?
- What evidence supports the entry for permission and ownership rule?
- What evidence supports the entry for validation sample and tolerance?
- What evidence supports the entry for cutover dependency and rollback trigger?
- What evidence supports the entry for risk owner and closure evidence?
Authoritative references
The following public resources provide context for the control and acquisition principles used in this file. They do not answer vendor-specific questions; use the current vendor documents and your organization's policies for the actual decision.