Safe Migration Plans for State Boundaries¶

Page Maps¶

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive DVC"]
  section["Migration Governance Dvc Boundaries"]
  page["Safe Migration Plans for State Boundaries"]
  capstone["Capstone evidence"]

  family --> program --> section --> page
  page -.applies in.-> capstone

flowchart LR
  orient["Orient on the page map"] --> read["Read the main claim and examples"]
  read --> inspect["Inspect the related code, proof, or capstone surface"]
  inspect --> verify["Run or review the verification path"]
  verify --> apply["Apply the idea back to the module and capstone"]

Migration is risky because it often looks like simple movement.

Examples:

move to a new DVC remote
rename a publish boundary
split one pipeline into two
move metrics into a new schema
change how experiments become releases

Each change can break trust if the state boundary moves without proof.

Move one boundary at a time¶

A safe migration names the boundary being moved:

Move promoted release artifacts from publish/v1/ to registry/incident-escalation/v1/ while preserving manifest, params, metrics, and recovery checks.

That is stronger than:

Reorganize publishing.

The first plan has a testable promise. The second can hide many unrelated changes.

A migration plan needs proof before and after¶

Before the change:

record the current trusted state
run the current verification route
identify consumers of the old boundary
decide rollback conditions

After the change:

run the same or replacement verification route
confirm consumers have a stable new boundary
compare manifests and release evidence
document what changed and what did not

flowchart LR
  old["old boundary"] --> inventory["inventory evidence"]
  inventory --> migrate["move boundary"]
  migrate --> verify["verify new boundary"]
  verify --> note["record migration note"]

Migration should preserve meaning¶

Renaming a metric key can be a migration. Moving the file is not the hard part. Preserving or explicitly changing the metric meaning is the hard part.

Ask:

did the metric definition change?
did the consumer path change?
did the retention promise change?
did recovery documentation change?
did any old release become harder to audit?

If yes, the migration note should say so.

Review checkpoint¶

You understand this core when you can:

name the state boundary being moved
avoid bundling unrelated migrations
define before-and-after proof routes
protect consumers and rollback paths
document meaning changes instead of hiding them inside movement

Safe migration is controlled boundary change, not file shuffling.