Migration-readiness checklist
Prepare the questions before you plan a move.
Use this printable checklist to inventory the records, people, and validation decisions that a future accounting migration would need. Version 1.0, published 2026-09-07.
Explore this page ↘Before using the checklist
QuickBooks Online migration is in development. No production migration scope is published for Arcaiva. Listing a data class below does not mean Arcaiva can import it, preserve its history, or reproduce its behavior.
Complete this as a planning note, not an instruction to move data. Keep source access and existing operations intact until a separately validated migration approach establishes scope, review, and fallback. Do not put sensitive account data into a public or shared working copy.
1. Identify the source and scope
- Record the source system, relevant edition or version, and company name in your own working copy.
- Name the business owner of the source records and the person allowed to authorize access.
- Separate the companies and periods under consideration; do not assume one scope covers all of them.
- Mark each requirement as essential for a move or a future-interest item.
| Record | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Source and company | Which exact system and company hold the records? |
| Period and cutoff | Which historical periods and open items must be considered? |
| Access and ownership | Who can provide authorized access and approve the scope? |
2. List the data classes that matter
Illustrative inventory entry: customer invoices; open and historical records required; associated PDFs matter; source owner and reviewer to be assigned internally. This is an example of a requirement, not a supported import mapping.
- Inventory customer records and any identifiers needed to distinguish duplicates.
- List invoices, signed adjustments, open receivables, and associated documents that would need review.
- Identify historical versus open records and any relationships that must remain understandable.
- Record export or source-access constraints without assuming they match an importer.
3. Define how records would be checked
Matching a total alone is not proof that every record or relationship is correct. A future migration evaluation needs both summary checks and representative record-level checks appropriate to its actual scope.
- Specify how source and destination record counts would be compared if a supported migration becomes available.
- Identify totals, adjustment signs, document relationships, and company boundaries that need reconciliation.
- Select representative normal records and known exceptions for human review.
- Define what evidence the reviewer would need before accepting each data class.
4. Assign reviewers and exceptions
- Name a reviewer for every essential data class.
- Keep unresolved exceptions separate from accepted results.
- Record any specialist advice needed for accounting, tax, or legal treatment.
| Field | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Data class | The group of records being reviewed. |
| Review owner | The person responsible for accepting or rejecting the result. |
| Known exception | A duplicate, unusual adjustment, missing document, or other condition to investigate. |
| Evidence required | The source record, document, or reconciliation that would resolve the question. |
| Disposition | Accept, investigate, or exclude, with a reason and decision owner. |
5. Define the fallback before a move
- Name the existing system or process that remains the operating reference if scope is not supported.
- Specify what would stop the proposed move: missing coverage, failed validation, or unresolved ownership.
- Identify who may authorize a retry or revised scope.
- Require a separately evidenced recovery approach before any production change; this checklist does not supply rollback tooling.
6. Review the readiness note
A completed checklist means your questions are organized. It does not establish migration readiness for Arcaiva, predict time or cost, guarantee completeness, or authorize a production move.
- Can each essential requirement be tied to explicit supported scope rather than a roadmap item?
- Are source access, ownership, validation evidence, and exception handling clear?
- Is the fallback understood and still available?
- Are unresolved questions visible rather than recorded as completed work?