Proof for whoever carries the risk
Banks and insurers need evidence a committee and a regulator will accept. Vendors and integrators need a sign-off their customers trust. Both need the same thing: a judge that isn't the builder.
Banks and insurersVendors and integratorsMainframeOracle migration
The rewrite is not what derails budgets
Translating legacy code to a modern stack is now the cheapest step. Overruns happen in the months spent comparing two systems by hand and struggling to secure business sign-off.
Undocumented logic
Critical systems have no complete test coverage and the original authors have gone. Teams spend the first year mapping edge cases nobody wrote down.
Assumption-based engineering
Without an answer key, developers rebuild from assumptions. Missed nuances become defects caught late in UAT, or after go-live.
Subjective sign-off
With no definitive evidence of equivalence, go-live becomes a judgement call under pressure rather than an auditable decision.
Built for regulated estates
A regulated institution cannot take an AI's word for anything. The platform assumes that from the start.
| Control | How it works |
|---|---|
| Integration | Read-only. We connect strictly to observe, and nothing is written back to your legacy estate at any point. |
| Verification | Not performed by a model. A deterministic engine holds expected values the builder never sees. |
| Data residency | Access control, classification and retention stay inside your perimeter, under your policy. |
| Execution | Digest-pinned containers with a read-only host bind. Nothing runs outside the declared scope. |
| Audit trail | Every verification writes a content-addressed receipt that can be replayed next quarter. |
Questions you can answer without the original engineers
Every run leaves a record. These are the questions it answers, months later, for someone who was not in the room.
| What changed, exactly? | brokered patch + workspace hash |
| What proved it? | gate result + output digest |
| What was the agent told? | redacted diagnosis envelope |
| Can we replay it? | content-addressed run receipt |
| Who approved this difference? | signed ledger entry, owner and date |
| When does that approval expire? | review date, enforced in code |
| What did we not check? | indeterminate register with reasons |
| How much of the estate did we reach? | coverage figure per workload |
Verify your delivery. Win the sign-off.
Your customer's risk committee wants proof that didn't come from the team that wrote the code. We provide it, whatever platform or method you use to build the replacement.
A judge that isn't the builder
Its rules are fixed and tested before the run, and the builder never sees the expected results. That's what makes the verdict count.
Differences your team can fix
Every failed comparison names the field and the cause, so your engineers fix the right thing first.
Evidence your customer keeps
Signed, replayable evidence for each release, ready for your customer's audit and risk teams.
The mainframe underneath is held to the same standard
| Technology | What we parse and compare | Equivalence |
|---|---|---|
| COBOL / batch | Copybooks, EBCDIC, zoned and packed decimal, keyed record alignment | gated |
| CICS | BMS screen maps, transaction routing, field-level screen diffing | gated |
| VSAM | KSDS, ESDS, RRDS, alternate indexes, path and component definitions | gated |
| IMS | PSB/DBD structure, GN/GNP/DLET/CHKP call paths | gated |
| HLASM | Fixed-position conversion routines, including dead branches | gated |
| PL/I | Procedures, includes, file handles, embedded SQL, reproducible builds | gated |
| JCL | Bounded discovery and semantic subset; JES, catalog and scheduler claims held back | gated |
| Db2 / data | Schema projection to PostgreSQL and Oracle with type and scale fidelity | gated |
Every technology here is proven in development. Equivalence unlocks with an authorised mainframe baseline — and the software holds that line itself, rather than a policy asking us to. You will always see where a claim stands.
Migrations rarely fail on the obvious things.
They fail on the details nobody noticed until month-end. These are the classes of defect the Verdict Engine checks for, on every run.
A time of day lost in a date conversion
An empty field treated as “no value”
A rounding difference nobody noticed
Illustrative values. The first two classes were found in a real ERP’s own migration history when we replayed twenty of its releases on both databases.
The proof comes back as a signed receipt, not a sign-off meeting.
The same approach, other systems
Oracle ERP
A second real Oracle estate, pinned to an exact upstream commit, with semantic risk signals detected across its own migration SQL. Proof the method is not tuned to one application.
SAP ASE
Measure semantic risk before choosing a migration target or accepting a conversion estimate. Catalog, row, replication and transaction semantics under the same contract as everything else.
Db2 for z/OS
Brought into the same semantic adapter contract as Oracle and ASE, with stored logic retained as bounded supporting evidence rather than an unqualified claim.
What we tell you we cannot do
This is our own analysis of where Oracle and PostgreSQL genuinely differ, published as we hold it internally. Most vendors reach this list in month four of a programme. You get it before you sign.
| Behaviour | Classification | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| Number precision and scale | exact | provable, no policy needed |
| Date includes time | normalized-equivalent | governed normalization, owned and dated |
| Empty string is null | policy-decision-required | your call, recorded before we proceed |
| Transaction isolation | policy-decision-required | needs concurrent probes and an approved policy |
| Sequence and identity state | lossy | cutover policy required; we cannot prove parity |
| DDL change capture | unsupported | excluded from claim scope, needs a separate plan |
Start with one process
Whichever side of the table you sit on, a Verification Sprint gives you a signed answer in four weeks.