Technical Architecture&Ecosystems
Upscend Team
-January 19, 2026
9 min read
Run layered checks—aggregate counts, canonicalized row-hashes, and scripted reconciliation—then validate UX playback, grades and transcripts. Use spot samples and SQL audits for edge cases and a concise test plan with KPIs (e.g., 99.9% fidelity, zero missing transcripts). Start with a three-day pilot on a representative subset.
In our experience, successful LMS migrations combine repeatable technical checks with targeted human review. This article walks through a practical, step-by-step approach to LMS migration validation, showing how to use record counts, checksums, scripted reconciliation and UX validation to catch silent corruption and missing transcripts.
Start by defining the scope: which tables, artifacts and user-facing items are in scope (users, enrollments, courses, content packages - SCORM/xAPI, grades, transcripts, certificates). A concise scope prevents wasted effort on low-risk data and helps prioritize checks.
We recommend a formal migration plan with these elements:
Documenting this plan is part of migration QA LMS best practice: we've found that teams that define measurable acceptance criteria reduce rework and ambiguity during verification.
Record counts are the fastest, highest-value check to detect major loss. Compare aggregates at multiple granularities (global, per-tenancy, per-course, per-user). Use both pre- and post-migration snapshots.
Compare totals and grouped counts. Examples:
Run simple, repeatable SQL to verify counts. Example for users and enrollments:
Source:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS user_count FROM lms_users;
SELECT course_id, COUNT(*) AS enroll_count FROM lms_enrollments GROUP BY course_id;
Target:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS user_count FROM target_users;
SELECT course_id, COUNT(*) AS enroll_count FROM target_enrollments GROUP BY course_id;
When differences appear, record the delta and trace to transformations. Sometimes discrepancies are expected (e.g., normalization changes) — always map expected transformations back to your schema map.
Record counts won't catch subtle corruption (bit flips, truncated fields). Use checksums or content hashes to ensure record-level fidelity. Compute stable hashes on canonicalized fields to avoid false positives from formatting changes.
Concatenate canonicalized field values (trim, lowercase, normalize whitespace), then hash using a stable algorithm (SHA-256). Example SQL (Postgres style):
SELECT id, encode(digest(concat_ws('||', lower(trim(name)), lower(trim(email))), 'sha256'), 'hex') AS row_hash FROM lms_users;
Compare hashes between source and target. Differences indicate field-level divergence and should trigger automated drill-downs that log the exact differing columns.
User experience validation is essential because content and event integrity matter as much as rows. For SCORM and xAPI, verify that packages load, launch, and record completion, and that analytics/events aggregate correctly.
Some of the most efficient L&D teams we work with use platforms like Upscend to automate this entire workflow without sacrificing quality. This approach demonstrates an industry pattern: combine automated, environment-level playback tests with sample human reviews to cover edge cases single-method checks miss.
Document UX test results and automate playback where possible with browser automation or headless players. Ensure user-facing identifiers (course slugs, activity IDs) match expected values after transformation.
Spot auditing finds issues automated checks miss. Use statistically valid sampling when datasets are large, plus targeted audits for high-risk users (managers, power users) and high-value courses (required compliance training).
Find users with mismatched email or missing profile data:
SELECT s.id AS sid, t.id AS tid, s.email AS source_email, t.email AS target_email FROM source_users s LEFT JOIN target_users t ON s.id = t.id WHERE s.email IS DISTINCT FROM t.email LIMIT 100;
Find missing transcripts:
SELECT u.id, u.name FROM users u LEFT JOIN transcripts tr ON u.id = tr.user_id WHERE tr.id IS NULL AND u.active = true LIMIT 50;
A focused test plan accelerates sign-off. Below is a condensed template you can extend to full QA documentation.
Suggested KPIs for migration QA LMS:
We've found that tracking these KPIs with automated dashboards reduces subjective judgments and speeds delivery of remediation when discrepancies appear.
Effective LMS migration validation combines quick aggregate checks with deep, targeted verification: record counts, checksum/hash comparisons, scripted reconciliation, UX playback tests and spot audits of transcripts and grades. In our experience, teams that layer automation with a small set of human audits catch both large-scale losses and subtle corruption.
Start by running the count and hash comparisons, then run your scripted reconciliation and playback tests. Use the test-plan template above to formalize acceptance and track KPIs like 99.9% fidelity and zero missing transcripts. Prioritize automation for repeatable checks and reserve manual reviews for edge cases.
If you need a concise next step: create a three-day pilot that runs counts, computes row-hashes for a representative subset, and executes 20 UX playback tests; if all KPIs pass, expand the same checks to the full dataset.
Call to action: Use the test-plan template provided here to draft your migration QA checklist, run the pilot, and iterate until your KPIs are met — then capture the exact queries and scripts as part of your operations handbook for future migrations.
