# Customer migration validation survey

Assess postmigration checking guidance.

If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

## 1. Which check was described?

Answer: ____________________

## 2. What discrepancy instruction was unclear?

Answer: ____________________

## 3. What confirmation evidence was missing?

Answer: ____________________

## Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Interpretation caution: Feedback does not prove data integrity.


## Keep transfer evidence and acceptance separate

Use synthetic or de-identified sample records and agreed validation rules.

### Transfer scope

Evidence needed: The agreed record types and exclusions are documented.

If evidence is missing: Resolve missing scope before treating counts as complete.

### Representative record checks

Evidence needed: Accepted examples preserve the required meaning and relationships.

If evidence is missing: Investigate discrepancies rather than relying only on a total count.

### Customer acceptance

Evidence needed: The customer can perform the agreed workflow using the migrated sample.

If evidence is missing: Technical transfer success does not close an unresolved operating outcome.

## Illustrative finding and follow-up

Observation: Checks omit a route for reporting differences.

Action to test: Explain the approved discrepancy process.

Follow-up: 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.


## Collection protocol

When and whom to ask: 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.

Follow-up: 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.