Operations migration — qualification

Record status

Record ID

project:operations-migration

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

qualification

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Not separately recorded

Owner role

Not separately recorded

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Project templates & workflows — overview — Create a local project from this template and validate its forms. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Qualification status

Result

NOT RUN

Disposition

HELD

Reviewer

Not recorded

Receipt

Not recorded

This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

Outcome definitions

Verified

All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect.

Failed

One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason.

Needs review

Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer.

Held

Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent.

The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only.

Proposed deterministic acceptance tests

Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded.

• A submission with no project owner, migration lead, approver, scope, or success definition is rejected with field-level errors.
• A submission with an end date or gate date lacking date, time, or timezone is rejected.
• A dependency without an owner, required-by date, blocking status, and evidence or stated exception is rejected.
• A workback with reconciliation scheduled before rehearsal is rejected.
• A proposal without a deterministic matching key, population definition, comparison rule, accepted variance, and unmatched-item rule is rejected.
• A proposal without rollback trigger, rollback owner, rollback steps, and verification evidence is held.
• Any cutover proposal with unresolved blocking dependencies or unreconciled exceptions is held.
• Changing a deadline or reconciliation rule creates a new revision and preserves the previous revision as read-only history.
• Duplicate submissions with the same canonical project ID and revision token do not create a second authoritative record; the conflict is surfaced for review.
• A failed save or unavailable local surface leaves the form data recoverable where supported, reports the failure clearly, and does not display a successful-save state.
• An approval action records reviewer, timestamp, decision state, changed revision, and receipt; it does not send messages, write providers, alter databases, or perform cutover.
• A rejected or held proposal remains searchable only according to its visibility classification and is not treated as qualified.
• Keyboard-only review reaches every field, error, gate, and destructive action in logical order.
• Every error is associated with its field, announced to assistive technology, and described without relying on color alone.
• Comparison results expose text alternatives for counts, mismatches, duplicates, and exceptions; no meaning is conveyed only through visual styling.
• Sensitive fields are minimized, redaction is available before saving, and private records are excluded from public indexing.
• Delete, discard, clear, or rollback-plan replacement requires an explicit confirmation naming the affected record and consequence.
• A destructive action is disabled or held when the actor lacks recorded authority or when a newer revision exists.
• If reconciliation cannot be completed, the system records the failure state, preserves inputs and evidence links, assigns an owner, and prevents approval.
• If rollback verification fails, the project enters held state with an escalated exception and cannot be marked qualified.

Negative and held-state tests

• Treating local prototype routes as connected migration systems or production control planes.
• Assuming provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or cutover effects from a named surface.
• Silent deadline timezone conversion or ambiguous date interpretation.
• Approving incomplete reconciliation because counts happen to match.
• Loss of revision history when assumptions, dependencies, or dates change.
• Duplicate records or conflicting edits creating unclear ownership.
• Exposing operationally sensitive data through search, attachments, public context, or incorrect visibility labels.
• Using inaccessible visual comparison evidence that prevents an authorized reviewer from detecting exceptions.
• Destructive deletion or rollback-plan replacement without confirmation, authority, or recovery evidence.
• Failure states being presented as success after save, reconciliation, approval, or rollback operations.
• Overstating qualification, readiness, deployment, provider connection, or rollback safety.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• A proposed project template can define migration scope, ownership, deadlines, dependencies, reconciliation rules, revision controls, privacy expectations, accessibility requirements, and rollback evidence requirements.
• The observed Notebook contract supports project collections, lifecycle, ordering, due items, revisions, provenance, links, attachments, and held provider effects.
• Local prototype routes can be designated as review surfaces for proposal records and workbacks.

Still held

• The capability has not been migrated or qualified.
• No provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or production connection is established.
• No cutover, rollback, external write, message send, or operational change has occurred.
• No reconciliation result, approval, deployment, or production readiness is asserted.
• Named native surfaces do not prove a connected web feature or authoritative backend.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• source_record:project:operations-migration
• NotebookCollectionKind.project
• NotebookTodoPayload.dueAt
• Notebook Agenda deadlines/workbacks
• Notebook records preserve canonical IDs, provenance, revisions, lifecycle, tags, links, and attachments
• PointGuard persistent cross-app context surface with specialist apps as execution and canonical-record owners
• Current GuthHub app routes are local prototypes or indexes; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are held