Record comparison cases before switching
Choose ordinary and unusual cases: a simple record, one with several attachments, a closed case and an open one. Record decisive properties or preserve a suitable reference version. Use unique identifiers so the same case can be found in the destination.
Define which results must remain unchanged and which changes are deliberate. A new state name may be intended; a lost deadline is not. Without this distinction, differences are either mistakenly treated as faults or too quickly accepted as normal.
Use counts as a starting point
Compare meaningful groups such as projects, active tasks, closed cases and attachments. Explain differences using the agreed transfer rules. Deliberately excluded old data belongs in the comparison.
Equal totals do not establish complete equivalence. Ten missing records and ten duplicates can produce the same total. Also inspect unique references and selected complete cases.
Open content and relationships
Read transferred text and check characters, paragraphs, dates and ownership. Open attachments and follow important relationships. A visible filename does not prove its contents are accessible.
Watch fields whose meaning may have changed. A former priority should not accidentally become a progress state. Compare such points against the documented field mapping and clarify differences with the person responsible for the work.
Complete an entire task
Ask an authorized person to continue and close a transferred case. Then inspect the result visible to other involved roles. The migration has been assessed in working terms only when reading, editing and handing over function together.
Also test important application connections. Does a new input appear in the intended location? Does a notification reach the right person? A tool that works correctly in isolation can still leave a gap in the connected workflow.
Group discrepancies by their cause
If ten items appear to be missing after a move, first compare the selection rules in both views. The old list may include closed records while the new one shows only active cases. A difference becomes evidence about the import only after period, status and permissions match. Save those conditions with the result so that another person can repeat the same comparison.
Separate missing records, incorrectly mapped values and display differences. A shortened display name needs a different correction from a lost customer identifier. Keep a concrete example and an affected count for each error group. Test any change to the import rule on a small selection before applying it widely.
After the correction, repeat both the disputed comparison and a sample that previously passed. This helps reveal whether repairing one area created discrepancies elsewhere. Record unresolved cases explicitly instead of letting them disappear behind a general statement that the migration is complete.
Track differences through to a decision
Maintain a list of affected cases, impact, owner and next step. Separate substantial errors from ordinary usage questions. Serious differences should invoke the previously agreed criteria for pausing or returning.
After a correction, repeat the affected check. Record the outcome instead of marking only the corrective action complete. Comparison establishes whether the content is actually right.
Close the transition review with an identified state: cases and functions checked, points still open and their owners. This says more than a general claim of successful migration that conceals the actual verification scope.
