Testing & verification
Prove the new system behaves like the old — whoever built it.
Most modernizations fall short because nobody can prove the new system behaves like the old — so cutover is a leap of faith, and subtle bugs surface in production. We run your original and the new system side by side, compare every output, and pinpoint exactly where they diverge — independent of whoever built it, with coverage your risk team can sign off on.
Why this exists
Modernizations don't fail at converting — they fail at proving.
The reason so many migrations stall or fall short isn't that the code couldn't be converted — it's that no one could prove the new system behaves identically, so cutover stays a terrifying leap and edge-case bugs reach production. And the project that needs this most often isn't yours to begin with: it's already in flight with an SI or an in-house team, and it's stalling at the verification step.
That's where we come in — as the independent verification layer, on whoever's output. We don't ask you to trust an AI; we automate the parallel-run methodology your auditors have trusted for decades, and show you the evidence.
How it works
Run both, same inputs
We drive your original system and the new one with the same inputs, side by side — the decades-old “parallel run” your auditors already trust, automated.
Compare every output
Outputs are compared value-for-value. A wrong total, a different rounding, an off-by-one — every divergence is caught, not sampled.
Localize the divergence
We pinpoint exactly where the new system diverges from the original — which transaction, which field, which line. Not just a red light: the address of the bug.
Sign-off-grade coverage
An honest, auditable report — what's proven equivalent, what isn't comparable yet and why — the evidence your risk and audit teams need to approve a cutover.
What you get back
- →Exactly where the new system diverges from the original — transaction, field, and line.
- →A regression-proof suite of matched scenarios you keep.
- →Honest, auditable coverage — what's proven equivalent, what isn't, and why.
- →A defensible cutover go/no-go your risk and audit teams can sign off on.
- →Works on whoever built the new system — your SI, your in-house team, or another tool.
What we verify — and what we report
Parallel-run verification needs both systems runnable. Computational and batch logic compares cleanly; interactive (CICS / BMS), VSAM/DB2-heavy, or externally-integrated paths need recorded traces or fixtures. So we verify the computational core strongly and the IO-heavy parts on the scenarios we can run — and report coverage honestly, never a misleading-green.
And we're precise about the “fix” line: we localizewhere behavior diverges for any system, and fix the code our own engine generated — fixing someone else's hand-written code is collaborative work we scope with you, not a blanket promise.
Why it's different
Independent
We didn't build the new system, so the verdict is unbiased — like an external auditor. That independence is exactly what risk and audit teams want.
Localizes, not just pass/fail
Most tests tell you something broke. We tell you exactly where the new system diverges from the original — so the fix is targeted, not a hunt.
Honest, auditable coverage
We show what's proven equivalent and what isn't comparable yet — transparency a due-diligence team trusts far more than a green checkmark.
Rescue a stalling cutover — or de-risk a healthy one
Whether your modernization is mid-flight and struggling at verification, or on track and you want audit-grade proof before cutover, we'll show you exactly where you stand.