{
  "title": "Customer migration validation survey",
  "questions": [
    "Which check was described?",
    "What discrepancy instruction was unclear?",
    "What confirmation evidence was missing?"
  ],
  "question_notes": [
    "Identify which validation task the administrator understood and which source or destination it concerns. This helps the migration owner separate a missing instruction from a check outside the agreed migration scope.",
    "Ask what the administrator would do with a mismatch in a fictional comparison. A discrepancy process needs a reporting route and enough non-sensitive context for investigation, rather than a vague instruction to check again.",
    "Find what evidence the administrator expects before confirming the check, such as an approved checklist result or signed review. Feedback clarifies the handoff but cannot establish completeness or data integrity."
  ],
  "answer_guidance": [
    {
      "question": 1,
      "format": "Short open text",
      "reason": "Identify which validation task the administrator understood and which source or destination it concerns. This helps the migration owner separate a missing instruction from a check outside the agreed migration scope.",
      "optional": true
    },
    {
      "question": 2,
      "format": "Short open text",
      "reason": "Ask what the administrator would do with a mismatch in a fictional comparison. A discrepancy process needs a reporting route and enough non-sensitive context for investigation, rather than a vague instruction to check again.",
      "optional": true
    },
    {
      "question": 3,
      "format": "Short open text",
      "reason": "Find what evidence the administrator expects before confirming the check, such as an approved checklist result or signed review. Feedback clarifies the handoff but cannot establish completeness or data integrity.",
      "optional": true
    }
  ],
  "respondent_instruction": "If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.",
  "field_protocol": {
    "send_when": "Ask administrators after they review a synthetic source-and-destination example using the approved validation checklist, before they confirm a real migration.",
    "decision_owner": "The migration lead and the owner of the approved discrepancy-review process.",
    "followup": "Show a fictional mismatched record and ask administrators to locate the reporting route, describe the minimum safe evidence and identify who reviews it. Confirm that the revised checklist supplies those steps; run separate migration validation to assess actual data integrity.",
    "response_handling": "Use fictional records. Collect process interpretation only, without source datasets, customer identifiers or exported account data."
  },
  "editorial_sections": [
    {
      "id": "guide-review-gates",
      "kind": "review-gates",
      "heading": "Keep transfer evidence and acceptance separate",
      "intro": "Use synthetic or de-identified sample records and agreed validation rules.",
      "rows": [
        [
          "Transfer scope",
          "The agreed record types and exclusions are documented.",
          "Resolve missing scope before treating counts as complete."
        ],
        [
          "Representative record checks",
          "Accepted examples preserve the required meaning and relationships.",
          "Investigate discrepancies rather than relying only on a total count."
        ],
        [
          "Customer acceptance",
          "The customer can perform the agreed workflow using the migrated sample.",
          "Technical transfer success does not close an unresolved operating outcome."
        ]
      ]
    }
  ],
  "note": "Examples to adapt. Not a validated instrument; manual editorial data, not a product import payload."
}