Evidence before reliance
Migration confidence is built from evidence, not reassurance
A migration is safe to rely on once it has been measured — not once someone has said it will probably be fine. This page shows the standard we hold ourselves to, the grades of evidence behind every claim, and what a scope manifest, acceptance ledger and parallel-run comparison actually look like before we ask you to trust a cutover.
Every sample on this page is illustrative — none is a customer result
A standard we hold ourselves to
The FlowPorter Migration Confidence Standard
Version 0.1 defines the minimum evidence FlowPorter requires before calling a migration safely assessed, accepted or complete. Each control has a plain pass condition, not a feeling.
Inventory completeness
No undisclosed material object or dependency remains inside the fixed scope.
Mapping clarity
No material item remains "Resolve" at scope lock — every item has an explicit destination treatment.
Acceptance coverage
All critical criteria pass, or carry an explicit customer-approved waiver.
Operational readiness
Production ownership is accepted; critical alerts and recovery paths are tested, not assumed.
Parallel or equivalent proof
The replacement is compared against source behavior — or another approved truth set — before full reliance.
Controlled cutover
Go/no-go approval is recorded and immediate post-switch checks pass before the source is retired.
Stabilization evidence
The target stays healthy after cutover; unresolved items move to a managed backlog or are explicitly accepted.
Not an independent accreditation
The FlowPorter Migration Confidence Standard is a working standard FlowPorter authored and self-governs. It is not issued, audited or certified by an independent standards body, and it should not be read as one. We publish it so customers can hold us to specific, checkable controls rather than a general assurance — we version it, log waivers, and would welcome external review as the practice matures.
These are lifecycle states describing where a project stands — not guarantees of outcome.
How we grade what's true
Evidence grades, from strongest to weakest
Every quantitative statement in a report, ledger or claim record on this site is tagged with one of five grades. We prefer the top of this list, and say so plainly when we can't reach it.
Customer measured
Your own systems or dashboards measure the pre- and post-migration outcome directly — for example, an invoice count reconciled inside your ERP.
FlowPorter observed
A FlowPorter engineer or FlowPorter tooling observes the behavior directly during delivery — for example, watching a workflow execute and logging its output.
Controlled test
Behavior is reproduced against a controlled fixture or test account, not live production traffic.
Customer reported
The customer tells us what happened. Useful for context, but not independently verified structurally or by test.
Estimate
A projected or assumed figure with no direct observation yet — used only for early-stage estimates and quick-assessment ranges.
The samples further down this page are labeled Estimate or Controlled test — never Customer measured or FlowPorter observed, because none of them come from a real project.
What gets signed before the price locks
Sample scope manifest
The scope manifest is the document a fixed price attaches to. It records what's in scope, how each item classifies, and a hash so a later dispute has something concrete to check against.
- Route
- Zapier → n8n
- Route-rules version
- rr-2026.03
- In-scope workflows
- 22 of 24 discovered
- Classification
- 13 Direct · 5 Transform
- Rebuild / Retire
- 3 Rebuild · 1 Retire
- Open Resolve items
- 0 at scope lock
- Critical workflows
- 4, listed by name in full manifest
- Target operating model
- Customer-controlled n8n
- Effective date
- 2026-07-10
- Scope hash
- sha256:4f9c…21ab
- Approved by (customer)
- Signature pending
- Fixed price attached
- $18,500–$24,000 → locks at signature
Illustrative scope manifest — not a customer result. Field values and the hash are representative only.
A green run is not the finish line
Sample acceptance plan
Every critical workflow gets an acceptance case agreed before build starts: a business outcome, a test input, an expected side effect and a named sign-off owner. Below are two illustrative examples from the FlowPorter Migration Confidence Standard's acceptance-coverage control.
A paid order creates exactly one fulfillment task and one customer receipt
- Trigger condition
- Pass
- Field mapping
- Pass
- Duplicate guard
- Pass
- Idempotency (retry)
- Pass
- Failure alert
- Pass
- Side effects
- Reconciled
Illustrative evidence record — not a customer result.
A duplicate webhook delivery does not create a second record
- Idempotency key
- Pass
- Duplicate guard
- Pass
- Repeat-alert suppression
- Pass
- Log entry
- Recorded
- Owner sign-off
- Pass
- Side effects
- Reconciled · 0 duplicates
Illustrative evidence record — not a customer result.
Source and target, compared line by line
Sample parallel-run comparison
Where parallel operation is safe, FlowPorter runs representative test inputs through the source and the rebuilt target, then reconciles the outputs before cutover. Parallel running is not mandatory when it's unsafe — an equivalent proof method is.
Swipe to see more →
| Test input | Source output (Zapier) | Target output (n8n) | Reconciled |
|---|---|---|---|
| New paid order (fixture #14) | 1 CRM record · 1 Slack message | 1 CRM record · 1 Slack message | Match |
| Duplicate webhook retry | 1 CRM record (idempotent) | 1 CRM record (idempotent) | Match |
| Missing required field | Workflow errors, alert fires | Workflow errors, alert fires | Match |
| Burst of 50 events/min | Processed, no drops | Processed, no drops | Match |
Illustrative parallel-run sample — not a customer result. Evidence grade: Controlled test. Real comparisons are scoped per critical workflow inside the acceptance plan.
Real customer evidence, published only when earned
Case studies are not published until there's something true to say
FlowPorter is an early practice. We won't invent logos, customer counts or outcomes to look more established than we are. When a case study does publish, it follows the same evidence-grade discipline as everything else on this page.
What a published case study will contain
- Route
- Disclosed
- Trigger for the move
- Disclosed
- Estate scale
- Disclosed
- Verified outcome
- Evidence-graded
- Evidence period
- Disclosed
- Customer approval
- Named or anonymized
No case study is live yet. This describes the format we'll hold ourselves to — it is not a result.
Every number has a record
The claim methodology behind every number on this site
Prices, timelines, mapping ratios and outcome statements are working hypotheses until a claim record backs them. A record exists so anyone — including us, later — can check whether a published number is still true.
| Field | What it captures |
|---|---|
| Exact wording | The precise sentence or figure as published, so a later reviewer checks the same claim. |
| Source | Where the number came from — an assessment rule, a delivered project, a public benchmark, or a stated assumption. |
| Date | When the number was recorded or last confirmed. |
| Method | How it was produced — see the evidence grades above: measured, observed, tested, reported or estimated. |
| Owner | The named person accountable for the claim's accuracy. |
| Review date | When the claim is next checked and either reconfirmed, revised or retired. |
"Indicative implementation band: $18.5k–$24k" (sample ZAP-N8N estate)
- Source
- Quick-estimate rules v1
- Method
- Estimate
- Recorded
- 2026-07
- Review by
- 2026-10
Illustrative claim record — not a customer result.
Related to evidence
Evidence discipline extends to your data, too
The same "show your work" standard applies to how FlowPorter handles what you share with us during an assessment or a migration — data minimization, local parsing where possible, and a documented credentials process.
Security & data handling
Read how FlowPorter minimizes assessment data, handles credentials, and manages access, retention and deletion.
Start with evidence
See what your own migration's evidence trail would look like.
Start the estimate now. The same evidence-grade discipline shown here applies from your first assessment onward.