Get In Touch
Our customer support team is available for help.
NetSuite Implementation
NetSuite Go-Live Readiness Checklist: The Go / Conditional Go / No-Go Framework
Most “go-live checklists” are lists of tasks to tick off. They tell you what to do. They rarely tell you what actually determines whether launching this week is a good decision or a bad one, and they almost never give a project owner, CFO, or steering committee a defensible way to say Go, Conditional Go, or No-Go and explain exactly why.
This is a decision framework, not a task list. It is built around 14 readiness gates. Each gate states what must actually be true, the evidence that proves it, who owns it, the warning signs that it isn’t real, and the specific condition that triggers a Go, a Conditional Go, or a No-Go. It is meant to be used in the room, during the actual go-live decision meeting, not read once and filed away.
Quick answer: A NetSuite go-live is ready when all 14 readiness gates below, from business process and data reconciliation through integrations, testing, cutover planning and rollback, are rated Go or Conditional Go with a named owner and fix date, and no gate has hit its No-Go trigger. One unresolved No-Go, most often in Data Migration, Integrations, or Rollback, outweighs strong readiness everywhere else.
What “Go-Live Ready” Actually Means
A NetSuite go-live decision is not one question. It is 14 smaller decisions, made across process, data, security, integrations, automation, reporting, testing, performance, cutover, people, hypercare and contingency, that get rolled up into one call. Treating it as a single yes/no question is exactly how teams end up going live with strong configuration and untested data reconciliation, or clean UAT and no rollback plan.
This matters for a specific reason: the gates are not equally forgiving. A gap in Reporting is usually recoverable in the first week. A gap in Data Migration & Reconciliation, Integrations, or Rollback / Contingency is much harder to walk back once transactions start flowing in production. The framework below treats them accordingly.
How To Use This Framework
Work through the 14 gates below with the actual gate owners, not just the project manager summarizing on their behalf. For each gate, agree on one rating: Go, Conditional Go, or No-Go. A Conditional Go is only valid if it comes with a named owner and a fix date, otherwise it is a No-Go wearing a softer label. Bring all 14 ratings into one steering committee meeting (Gate 14) and apply the rollup rule below.
Working Through A Real Go-Live
Get a second set of eyes on your readiness gates
ERP Peers reviews go-live readiness for NetSuite implementations in progress, including integration and hypercare readiness, and helps steering committees make a defensible Go / Conditional Go / No-Go call before launch, not after.
The 14 Readiness Gates
Each gate below follows the same structure: what must be true, the evidence that proves it (not just an assertion), who owns it, the warning signs that it isn’t real yet, and the specific Go / Conditional Go / No-Go trigger.
| Gate | Owner | Go Trigger (in one line) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Business Process Readiness | Business Process Owners | Every core process run end-to-end and signed off |
| 2. Configuration & Customization | Solution Architect | Config matches signed-off requirements, every customization owned |
| 3. Data Migration & Reconciliation | Data Lead + Controller | Final load reconciles to source control totals |
| 4. Roles, Permissions & Security | IT / Security Lead | Roles tested as real roles, SoD conflicts resolved |
| 5. Integrations | Integration Architect | Every integration tested end-to-end on production credentials |
| 6. Workflows / SuiteScript / Automation | SuiteCloud Developer | Scripts tested at realistic volume with error handling |
| 7. Reporting & Financial Outputs | Finance / Ops Owners | Reports reconcile to legacy figures, reviewed by real users |
| 8. Testing / UAT / Regression | QA / Test Lead | UAT complete by real users, clean regression pass |
| 9. Performance / Governance | Technical Lead | Validated under realistic concurrent load and volume |
| 10. Cutover Planning | Project Manager | Runbook complete, freeze window enforced, sequence rehearsed |
| 11. User & Support Readiness | Training Lead | Role-based training done, escalation path published |
| 12. Hypercare / Monitoring | PM + Technical Lead | Staffing, monitoring and exit criteria all defined |
| 13. Rollback / Contingency | Executive Sponsor + PM | Plan documented, walked through, authority clear |
| 14. Executive Go / No-Go Decision | Steering Committee | All gates reviewed together, one documented decision |
GATE 1
Business Process Readiness
What Must Be True
End-to-end business processes, order-to-cash, procure-to-pay, record-to-report, have been walked through inside NetSuite by the people who will actually run them, not just configured and demoed by the implementation team.
Evidence To Verify
- Signed-off process maps or SOPs that match how the system actually behaves, not the original design intent
- A named process owner for each major process (not IT)
- Evidence that exceptions and edge cases, returns, partial shipments, multi-currency, were tested, not just the happy path
Owner
Business Process OwnersWarning Signs
- Process documentation exists but was never walked through live in the system
- Edge cases are untested and the plan is to “figure it out after go-live”
- The process owner has not personally run the process in NetSuite
GoEvery core process has been run end-to-end with real transaction types and signed off by its owner.
Conditional GoHappy-path processes are verified; a small number of low-frequency exceptions have a documented interim workaround and owner.
No-GoA core daily process, order fulfillment, invoicing, has not been run end-to-end by the team who will run it live.
GATE 2
Configuration & Customization
What Must Be True
Configuration matches the final, signed-off business requirements, and every customization, custom field, form, record, script, has a documented purpose and an owner, not just a build ticket.
Evidence To Verify
- A configuration workbook reconciled against the signed-off requirements, not the original scope document
- A customization list with purpose, owner and business justification for each item
- No “temporary” configuration items still active with no plan to remove or formalize them
- Tax configuration (whether SuiteTax or an external tax engine) tested against realistic transaction and jurisdiction scenarios, not just default rates, including exemption handling where relevant
- If OneWorld / multi-subsidiary is in scope: intercompany transactions, eliminations and consolidation logic, and subsidiary-level currency/tax setup tested end-to-end, not just single-subsidiary transactions
Owner
Solution Architect / Functional LeadWarning Signs
- Configuration changed after UAT without being re-tested
- Customizations exist that nobody can explain the business reason for
- Multiple people can edit the same configuration area with no change control
GoConfiguration matches signed-off requirements; every customization has a documented purpose and owner.
Conditional GoMinor configuration gaps exist, are low-impact, and have a fix scheduled within hypercare.
No-GoCore configuration diverges from what was tested, or a customization touching financial data has no owner.
GATE 3
Data Migration & Reconciliation
What Must Be True
Migrated data reconciles to source-system control totals, not just record counts, and opening balances tie out to what Finance expects.
Evidence To Verify
- Reconciliation reports comparing source vs. target by control total: GL balances, AR/AP aging, inventory quantities and values
- A documented list of known data gaps and their business impact, reviewed and accepted, not silently dropped
- Reconciliation re-run against the final data load, not an earlier test load
Owner
Data Migration Lead + Controller Sign-OffWarning Signs
- Only record counts were reconciled, not dollar or quantity totals
- Reconciliation happened once, weeks before go-live, and was never re-run on the final load
- Opening balances are described as “close enough”
GoThe final data load reconciles to source control totals and Finance has signed off on opening balances.
Conditional GoFinancial data reconciles; a small number of non-financial gaps (old notes, historical attachments) are documented and accepted.
No-GoOpening GL balances, AR/AP aging, or inventory valuation do not reconcile to source, or reconciliation has not happened at all.
GATE 4
Roles, Permissions & Security
What Must Be True
Roles reflect least-privilege access aligned to actual job functions, and segregation-of-duties conflicts, especially around approvals and payments, have been reviewed.
Evidence To Verify
- A role-to-permission matrix reviewed by IT or security, not copied from a template
- A documented segregation-of-duties review: no single role can both create and approve the same transaction type
- Test logins performed as each real role, not only as Administrator
Owner
IT / Security LeadWarning Signs
- Everyone is still testing logged in as Administrator
- Roles were copied from a similar company’s template without review
- No segregation-of-duties review has been done
GoRoles match job functions, have been tested as each role, and SoD conflicts are resolved or formally accepted.
Conditional GoRoles are largely correct; a small number of edge-case users have temporary elevated access with an expiry date and owner.
No-GoFinancial approval roles have unresolved SoD conflicts, or end users have never logged in and worked under their real role.
GATE 5
Integrations
What Must Be True
Every integration in scope has been tested as a full chain, source system to NetSuite to any downstream system, not tested in isolation, and points to production credentials and endpoints, not sandbox ones.
Evidence To Verify
- An integration inventory listing each connection, its direction, its owner and its tested status
- End-to-end test evidence covering the full chain, not just the NetSuite-side connector
- Confirmed production credentials, tokens and endpoints, sandbox tokens are not automatically carried over on a refresh
Owner
Integration Architect / Technical LeadWarning Signs
- Each integration was demoed individually but never run together in a realistic sequence
- Nobody has verified duplicate-prevention or idempotency behavior under a retry
- No one owns responding to integration failures once the project team disbands
GoEvery integration is tested end-to-end on production credentials, with monitoring, alerting and a named failure owner.
Conditional GoIntegrations touching financial or order data are fully tested; lower-priority integrations have a documented go-live-plus-N date.
No-GoA financially significant integration has not been tested end-to-end, or no one owns responding to integration failures.
GATE 6
Workflows / SuiteScript / Automation
What Must Be True
Custom scripts and workflows have been tested under realistic data volume and concurrency, not only against single test records, with visible error handling and logging.
Evidence To Verify
- A script deployment log noting governance and performance behavior, not just a pass/fail from one test record
- Test evidence showing scripts behaving correctly on batch or bulk operations
- Confirmed error handling and logging for each script, failures should never fail silently
Owner
SuiteCloud Developer / Technical LeadWarning Signs
- Scripts were only ever tested with one record at a time
- No one has checked script execution logs for governance-limit warnings
- Workflow actions can fail with no log entry and no notification to anyone
GoAll scripts and workflows are tested at realistic volume, with confirmed error handling and logging.
Conditional GoCore scripts are proven at volume; a small number of lower-impact automations are monitored in hypercare by a named owner.
No-GoA script touching financial transactions has not been tested beyond a single record, or failures fail silently.
GATE 7
Reporting, Saved Searches & Financial Outputs
What Must Be True
Business-critical reports and saved searches produce numbers that reconcile to what Finance and Operations expect, checked against the legacy system’s known-good output for a recent period.
Evidence To Verify
- A list of business-critical reports signed off by the person who actually reads them each month, not just IT
- A side-by-side comparison of key report totals against the legacy system for a real prior period
- A bank reconciliation process tested against a real, representative statement period, not just sample data
- Financial outputs reconciled against expected business/accounting results, not just system-generated totals
Owner
Finance / Operations Report OwnersWarning Signs
- Reports were built but never shown to the people who will actually use them
- Nobody has compared a report total to the equivalent legacy-system number
- Bank reconciliation has never been run against a real bank statement, only test or sample data
GoBusiness-critical reports reconcile to legacy figures and have been reviewed by their actual users.
Conditional GoCore financial reports reconcile; a few operational reports have known gaps with a documented interim process.
No-GoA report Finance depends on for close, AR aging, trial balance, does not reconcile to legacy data.
GATE 8
Testing / UAT / Regression
What Must Be True
UAT was performed by actual end users using realistic, day-in-the-life scenarios, kept clearly separate from end-user training, with sign-off recorded per scenario, followed by a regression pass after any late configuration change.
Evidence To Verify
- UAT scripts covering real business scenarios, not just individual screen or field checks
- Documented sign-off per scenario from the actual business tester, not the implementation team standing in
- A regression pass confirming late configuration changes did not break earlier-tested processes
Owner
QA / Test LeadWarning Signs
- UAT and end-user training were combined into one session, so no one can say testing was actually completed
- UAT was performed by the implementation team rather than real end users
- Defects found late in UAT were quietly deferred with no documented business risk
GoUAT is complete, performed by real end users, signed off, with a clean regression pass after final changes.
Conditional GoUAT is substantially complete; a small number of low-severity defects are logged with an owner and fix date.
No-GoUAT was not performed by actual end users, or a core process has an unresolved defect discovered during UAT.
GATE 9
Performance / Governance
What Must Be True
The system has been tested under realistic concurrent user load and data volume, not only individual transaction testing, with attention to SuiteScript governance limits at peak usage.
Evidence To Verify
- A load or volume test, even an informal one, showing acceptable response times under expected concurrent usage
- A review of scheduled scripts for governance-unit consumption specifically at peak volume, such as month-end close
Owner
Technical Lead / NetSuite AdministratorWarning Signs
- All testing happened with one or two users and low data volume
- No one has modeled what happens when every warehouse user is entering transactions at month-end close simultaneously
GoPerformance is validated under realistic concurrent load and data volume, with no governance concerns at peak.
Conditional GoPerformance is acceptable under tested conditions; peak-period behavior is monitored closely in hypercare.
No-GoNo performance testing beyond single-user testing exists for a high-concurrency process such as order entry.
GATE 10
Cutover Planning
What Must Be True
A detailed, time-boxed cutover runbook exists with a clear data-freeze window on the legacy system, named task owners, and a defined point of no return.
Evidence To Verify
- A cutover runbook with tasks, owners and timing, not a bullet list in a status deck
- A communicated freeze window for legacy-system changes, understood by the people who would otherwise keep entering data there
- A rehearsal or dry run of the cutover sequence, even a partial one
- A defined in-flight technical go/no-go checkpoint, owned by the cutover lead, after critical migration steps complete and before users are released into production. This is separate from Gate 14’s executive decision and does not require the full steering committee to reconvene
Owner
Project Manager / Cutover LeadWarning Signs
- No one has actually rehearsed the cutover sequence, only discussed it
- The freeze window has not been communicated to the teams still working in the legacy system
- There is no defined moment where the team commits to “we are live” versus “we can still roll back”
GoThe cutover runbook is complete, the freeze window is enforced, and the sequence has been rehearsed.
Conditional GoThe cutover plan is complete and communicated; a full rehearsal has not happened but each step has been validated separately.
No-GoNo documented freeze window exists, or no one has walked through the actual cutover sequence step by step.
GATE 11
User & Support Readiness
What Must Be True
End users have been trained on their actual role-based workflows, kept separate from UAT, and know exactly where to get help on day one.
Evidence To Verify
- Training completion records tied to role, not a single generic company-wide session
- A published support escalation path, who to contact, how, and by when, specific to go-live week
Owner
Training Lead / Change ManagementWarning Signs
- Training happened weeks before go-live with no refresher close to the date
- Users do not know who to contact if something breaks on day one
- “Super users” were named on a slide but never actually briefed on their role
GoRole-based training is complete close to the go-live date, and the support escalation path is published and understood.
Conditional GoTraining is complete; the escalation path exists but has not been widely communicated yet, with a plan to do so before go-live.
No-GoNo role-based training has occurred, or there is no defined go-live-week support escalation path.
GATE 12
Hypercare / Post-Go-Live Monitoring
What Must Be True
A defined hypercare period exists with dedicated resources, clear exit criteria, not just a calendar date, and active monitoring rather than an assumption that “someone will be around.”
Evidence To Verify
- A hypercare staffing plan naming who is covering what, and when
- Monitoring and alerting in place for integrations, scheduled scripts and key transaction volumes
- Defined exit criteria for ending hypercare, tied to issue volume and stability, not a fixed date alone
Owner
Project Manager + Technical LeadWarning Signs
- Hypercare is assumed rather than staffed
- No one is actively watching integration or script error logs during the hypercare window
- Hypercare ends on a fixed date regardless of whether issues are still open
GoHypercare staffing, monitoring and exit criteria are all defined and resourced.
Conditional GoThe hypercare plan exists with a staffing gap in a low-risk area, such as one on-call reporting resource rather than dedicated coverage.
No-GoNo hypercare plan exists, or nobody is assigned to actively monitor integrations and scripts immediately after go-live.
Go-live day is not the finish line. The real test of readiness is the first clean month-end close on the new system: reports that reconcile, no manual workarounds nobody documented, and no urgent fire drill traced back to something this framework should have caught. Treat the first close, not launch day, as the actual measure of a successful go-live.
GATE 13
Rollback / Contingency
What Must Be True
A contingency plan exists that distinguishes what is realistically possible at different points after go-live: a full rollback to the legacy system, which most projects find is only genuinely viable in a limited early window before live transaction activity accumulates (the exact window varies by project; treat this as practitioner guidance, not a fixed rule), and a partial, targeted contingency for later on, isolating the specific broken process, integration, or module and using a temporary, controlled workaround while preserving data integrity and clear ownership.
Evidence To Verify
- A documented full-rollback plan for the early post-go-live window, with a named decision-maker and a decision deadline
- A documented partial-contingency approach for later on: how a single broken process, integration, or module gets isolated and worked around without reverting the whole system
- Confirmation that legacy-system access and data remain available and unmodified for the defined early window
- A walkthrough of both plans with the people who would actually execute them
Owner
Executive Sponsor + Project ManagerWarning Signs
- The plan only discusses full rollback, with no partial-contingency option for after the early window closes
- Legacy-system data kept changing after go-live, making even the early-window rollback impractical
- No one knows who has the authority to call either a full rollback or a partial-contingency response
GoA contingency plan covers both the early-window full-rollback option and a later-stage partial-contingency approach, walked through with the execution team, with clear decision authority for each.
Conditional GoThe early-window full-rollback plan and decision authority are clear; the later-stage partial-contingency approach is understood in principle but not yet formally documented.
No-GoNo contingency plan exists for either scenario, or legacy-system data is no longer preserved in a state that makes even the early-window rollback realistic.
GATE 14
Executive Go / No-Go Decision
What Must Be True
The steering committee reviews all 13 prior gates together, in one meeting, not department by department in isolation, and makes one explicit, documented decision.
Evidence To Verify
- A completed readiness scorecard across all 13 gates presented in a single meeting
- A documented decision, Go, Conditional Go, or No-Go, with named conditions and owners if Conditional
- Explicit executive sign-off recorded, silence is not treated as approval
Owner
Executive Sponsor / Steering CommitteeWarning Signs
- No single meeting brings all 13 gates together, so risk in one area stays invisible to leaders focused on another
- “No news is good news” is treated as approval
- A Conditional Go is made without naming who owns each condition and by when
GoAll 13 gates are rated Go and the steering committee formally signs off.
Conditional GoOne or more gates are Conditional, each with a named owner, fix and date, and the committee explicitly accepts the residual risk.
No-GoAny gate is rated No-Go and its trigger condition remains true at the time of the decision meeting.
Common Failure Patterns: What Teams Commonly Miss
These patterns show up repeatedly across NetSuite go-lives, independent of company size or industry. None of them are exotic. They are ordinary gaps that pass unnoticed because no one was explicitly checking for them.
- UAT and end-user training get combined into one session. This is one of the most common and most avoidable causes of a rocky go-live. UAT proves the system works for the business; training teaches people to use it. Collapsing them into one session means neither actually happened, and no one can honestly say testing is complete.
- Clean UAT, but no end-to-end regression pass. Individual processes pass UAT, but a configuration change made to fix one issue quietly breaks a process that was already signed off, and nobody re-tests the chain.
- Opening balances are “close enough.” Record counts match, but GL balances, AR/AP aging, or inventory valuation were never reconciled to actual control totals, and the gap only surfaces during the first month-end close.
- Integrations tested individually, never as a chain. Each connection was demoed in isolation. Nobody ran the full sequence, source system to NetSuite to downstream system, together, so a timing or sequencing issue only appears in production.
- Sandbox testing used credentials that don’t exist in production. Tokens created in a sandbox account are not copied forward on a refresh, so integration testing that looked successful in sandbox can fail on day one if production tokens and endpoints were never independently verified.
- Permission problems appear only after launch. Testing happened as Administrator, not as the actual roles end users will hold, so segregation-of-duties conflicts and missing permissions surface for the first time in production.
- Saved searches and reports were never reconciled to expected outputs. Reports were built to spec, but nobody compared their totals to the legacy system’s known-good numbers before go-live, so a broken formula or filter isn’t caught until finance needs the number.
- Scheduled scripts behave differently under real production load. A script tested against one record works fine; the same script running against a full month-end batch hits a governance limit or timing issue that never appeared in testing.
- Nobody owns monitoring, retries, or reconciliation after go-live. Integration and script error logs exist, but no one is assigned to actively watch them once the project team’s attention moves elsewhere.
- The cutover freeze window is assumed, not enforced. A freeze window is written into the plan, but nobody explicitly told the teams still working in the legacy system, so data keeps changing after the migration snapshot was taken.
- User access and support escalation gaps. End users are trained, but on day one they don’t know who to call when something doesn’t work exactly as trained, so small issues sit unresolved and confidence in the new system erodes early.
- The rollback plan exists only on paper. It was written during planning, never revisited, and never walked through with the people who would actually need to execute it, so if a rollback were genuinely needed, no one is confident it would work.
Integration Readiness: Why It Deserves Extra Scrutiny
Integration failures are disproportionately represented in rocky go-lives, not because integrations are inherently fragile, but because they are the one readiness area that requires two or more systems, and often two or more teams, to be correct and coordinated at the same moment. A handful of areas deserve specific attention beyond the general Integrations gate above:
- System-of-record ownership. For every shared entity, customer, item, order, inventory, one system needs to be the authoritative source. If two systems can both legitimately update the same field, reconciliation problems are inevitable, not occasional.
- Dependency mapping and sequencing. If Integration B depends on data that Integration A has already written to NetSuite, that dependency needs to be explicit in the cutover plan, not discovered when B fails because A hasn’t run yet.
- Credentials, tokens and production endpoints. Sandbox tokens are not automatically copied forward on a sandbox refresh; confirm that every integration is pointed at production credentials and production endpoints before go-live, not the values used during development.
- Idempotency and duplicate prevention. A retried request after a timeout or partial failure should not create a duplicate record. This needs to be tested deliberately, it rarely surfaces in a single clean test run.
- Reconciliation and alerting. Someone needs to own comparing what was sent against what was received, on a defined cadence, and be alerted automatically when the two diverge, not rely on a downstream team noticing missing data days later.
- Volume and partner/EDI readiness. A trading-partner or EDI integration tested with a handful of sample transactions behaves differently under real order volume; confirm the connection has been validated against realistic throughput, not just format correctness.
- Upstream/downstream cutover sequencing. Decide explicitly which system goes live first when integrations run in both directions, and what happens to transactions that occur in the gap between the two cutovers.
For a deeper breakdown of integration architecture patterns, authentication and API governance limits, and reconciliation design across methods like SuiteTalk, RESTlets, iPaaS platforms and EDI, see our NetSuite Integration Architecture guide.
Where ERP Peers Fits Into This
This framework is built to be used with or without ERP Peers. Most teams that use it are running their own go-live, with an internal team, an implementation partner, or both, and want a structured way to have the readiness conversation.
Where we do get involved is usually one of a few specific gaps: reviewing integration readiness before a go-live where the internal team doesn’t have deep integration experience, supporting hypercare and post-go-live monitoring so issues get caught and owned instead of drifting, and helping resolve the specific gate that’s genuinely blocking a decision, whether that’s data reconciliation, permissions and security, or a workflow that hasn’t been proven at volume.
We’ve supported similar readiness and post-go-live work on real NetSuite projects, including go-live support and optimization for a heavy equipment manufacturer, a multi-entity food company’s migration and integration, and an Amazon Vendor Central EDI integration for a multi-channel business.
If a specific gate is genuinely uncertain on your project, whether that’s integration readiness, a customization that needs review, or building out a hypercare plan, talk it through with our team. There’s no obligation attached to the conversation.
FAQ
No. A go-live readiness checklist confirms whether the business, data, integrations, and people are actually ready across all the areas covered in this framework. A cutover plan is the time-boxed, hour-by-hour execution playbook for launch weekend itself, including the freeze window and rollback triggers. Most teams need both, and the readiness review should happen before the cutover plan is finalized.
At least two to four weeks before the planned date is a practical minimum. That leaves enough time to actually fix a No-Go item and re-test it, rather than being forced to either launch anyway or push the date at the last minute with no runway to recover.
The executive sponsor or steering committee, not the project manager or implementation partner alone. They are best positioned to weigh business risk against schedule and budget pressure, and the decision carries more weight when it is made and documented by the people accountable for the outcome.
This happens under real deadline pressure, and the framework does not pretend otherwise. If leadership chooses to proceed, the specific risk being accepted, and who is accepting it, should be documented in writing before go-live. That turns an unspoken gamble into an explicit, accountable decision.
A Conditional Go names the specific open item, its owner, and its fix date before go-live happens. It is a defined, tracked exception, not a general assumption that unresolved issues will get sorted out eventually once the system is live.
No. A No-Go on Data Migration & Reconciliation, Integrations, or Rollback / Contingency is harder to recover from once transactions start flowing in production than a similar gap in Reporting or Configuration. Weigh the rollup decision accordingly rather than treating every gate as interchangeable.
There is no single correct number, and treating it as a fixed calendar date is itself a common mistake. Most hypercare periods run from one to a few weeks of dedicated, elevated support, ending when defined exit criteria are met, issue volume has dropped and stabilized, not simply when a date on the calendar arrives.
Yes, the same 14 gates apply. Data Migration & Reconciliation shifts to reconciling between two already-live systems rather than a legacy migration, and Rollback / Contingency needs to account for whether the prior system is still available to fall back to.