Sequence the migration into nine dependency-ordered waves, prove the operating chain through golden scenarios, rehearse the cutover until it is boring, and hold the go-live decision against criteria agreed in advance.
The wave plan exists because migration objects depend on each other, and loading them in the wrong order produces failures whose cause is several steps upstream of where they appear. The rehearsals exist because a cutover is a timed operational procedure, and timed procedures are proven by executing them rather than by planning them.
Several of the dependencies are worth naming explicitly, because they are the ones teams try to work around.
Three objects carry disproportionate cutover risk in a SYSPRO migration, and it is worth restating what each needs at the moment of transition.
The playbook specifies nine end-to-end scenarios, and their common property is that each crosses module boundaries. That is what makes them useful in a migration from a tightly coupled source: the boundaries are where the target's greater separation shows.
The distinction that matters here is between a load rehearsal and a cutover rehearsal.
The playbook's criteria are specific enough to be checked, which is what makes them usable:
The window is a sequence, and every step needs an owner, a duration and a completion check.
Hypercare is where the SYSPRO-specific risks concentrate, because the coupling that the target has separated is now separated in production.
Nine waves, dependency-ordered, each with a gate signed by a named business owner. On-hand, open work in progress and the open financial book are the three cutover objects that carry disproportionate risk. Golden scenarios cross module boundaries, run on real data, executed by the people who will do the job, and end in a reconciliation.