Every studio publishes a Discover → Design → Develop → Deploy graphic — it describes every project ever run and proves nothing about ours. Below are the judgment calls we actually make on a data migration, and where each one has broken in practice.
A row-count parity check per table, run before and after every incremental load — but count parity alone is not proof. Two tables can match on count and still disagree on content, so we pair it with value-level checks: hashing a sample of rows (or every row, below a size threshold) and comparing source against target.
The report ships as an artifact before cut-over, not a verbal assurance — every migration gets one, whether the client asks for it or not.
Counts matched, values didn't: duplicate keys collapsed differently between systems, so 10,000 source rows became 9,850 target rows with the same count reported at a different aggregation level.
The commitments that apply whichever division you engage.
Encryption, access control, and compliance are designed into every engagement — not bolted on at the end.
Whether it's content and SEO or production data, nothing is left behind. Reconciliation and redirects are the baseline.
You deal directly with the engineer building your product. No juniors handed your critical migration.
Staging sign-off and incremental cut-over keep you live and trading while the new platform comes online.
Tell us about your current site or data systems. We'll scope the work and send a quote — no first call required.
