Imports and migration

Record mapping and field-review boundaries

Migration help should explain mapping boundaries clearly so churches do not confuse guided review with automatic field certainty.

Who this is for: Admins comparing export fields, record models, and migration assumptions.

Last reviewed 2026-04-30 · Source of truth: broader help library · Languages: en, es

Article metadata

Product area: imports and migration

Owner: Migration and import workflows

Parity reviewer: Bilingual launch review

Retrieval-ready: Yes

What to expect next

List the fields or record relationships your team is least certain about before guided review.
Keep ambiguous mappings visible instead of silently flattening them into guessed equivalents.

What guided review can help with

Guided review can help identify likely field meanings, risky assumptions, and places where your current export structure may need clarification.

It can also help separate obvious mappings from judgment-heavy relationships that need church-side confirmation.

What should not be implied

A field with a familiar name should not be treated as proven just because it looks similar to a Transparent concept.

Migration help should never imply that every relationship, household rule, or custom field can be mapped automatically without review.

Escalation path

If a mapping decision could change reporting meaning, household structure, or real people data, escalate it instead of treating it as a routine field match.

Related next steps

Use the migration readiness checklist Ask grounded support Open Spanish version Back to help center