Beyond Go-Live: How AI-Powered Data Lineage Transforms Post-Migration Reconciliation
Your new core banking system just went live. The migration appeared successful. Then Monday morning hits: customers can't access their accounts, transaction amounts don't match, and your reconciliation team is drowning in discrepancies. Sound familiar?
If you've ever been part of a major system migration, you've likely lived a version of this nightmare. What's worse is that this scenario isn't the exception—it's becoming the norm. A recent analysis of failed implementations reveals that organizations spend 60-80% of their post-migration effort on reconciliation and testing, yet they're doing it completely blind, without understanding WHY differences exist between old and new systems.
The result? Projects that should take months stretch into years, costs spiral out of control, and in the worst cases, customers are impacted for weeks while teams scramble to understand what went wrong.
The Hidden Crisis: When Reconciliation Becomes Archaeology
Let's be honest about what post-migration reconciliation looks like today. Your team runs the same transaction through both the legacy system and the new system. The old system says the interest accrual is $5. The new system says it's $15. Now what?
"At this point in time, the business says who is right?" explains Caitlin Truong, CEO of Zengines. "Is it that we have a rule or some variation or some specific business rule that we need to make sure we account for, or is the software system wrong in how they are computing this calculation? They need to understand what was in that mainframe black box to make a decision."
The traditional approach looks like this:
- Business analyst discovers the discrepancy
- Tickets get raised to investigate the difference
- Someone (usually an expensive SME) digs through legacy code
- Weeks or months pass while they navigate thousands of lines of COBOL
- Finally, an answer emerges—but it spawns three new questions
- The cycle repeats
The real cost isn't just time—it's risk. While your team plays detective with legacy systems, you're running parallel environments, paying for two systems, and hoping nothing breaks before you figure it out.
The Root Problem: Legacy Systems as Black Boxes
Here's what most organizations don't realize: the biggest risk in any migration isn't moving the data—it's understanding the why behind the data.
Legacy systems, particularly mainframes running COBOL code written decades ago, have become black boxes. The people who built them are retired. The business rules are buried in thousands of modules with cryptic variable names. The documentation, if it exists, is outdated.
"This process looks like the business writing a question and sending it to the mainframe SMEs and then waiting for a response," Truong observes. "That mainframe SME is then navigating and reading through COBOL code, traversing module after module, lookups and reference calls. It’s understandable that without additional tools, it takes some time for them to respond."
When you encounter a reconciliation break, you're not just debugging a technical issue—you're conducting digital archaeology, trying to reverse-engineer business requirements that were implemented 30+ years ago.
One of our global banking customers faced this exact challenge. They had 80,000 COBOL modules in their mainframe system. When their migration team encountered discrepancies during testing, it took over two months to get answers to simple questions. Their SMEs were overwhelmed, and the business team felt held hostage by their inability to understand their own system.
"When the business gets that answer they say, okay, that's helpful, but now you've spawned three more questions and so that's a painful process for the business to feel like they are held hostage a bit to the fact that they can't get answers themselves," explains Truong.
The AI-Powered Revolution: From Reactive to Predictive
What if instead of discovering reconciliation issues during testing, you could predict and prevent them before they happen? What if business analysts could investigate discrepancies themselves in minutes instead of waiting months for SME responses?
This is exactly what our mainframe data lineage tool makes possible.
"This is the challenge we aimed to solve when we built our product. By democratizing that knowledge base and making it available for the business to get answers in plain English, they can successfully complete that conversion in a fraction of the time with far less risk," says Truong.
Here's how it works:
1. Intelligent System Understanding
AI algorithms ingest your entire legacy codebase—COBOL modules, JCL scripts, database schemas, and job schedulers. Instead of humans manually navigating 80,000 lines of code, pattern recognition identifies the relationships, dependencies, and calculation logic automatically.
2. Business Rule Extraction
The AI doesn't just map data flow—it extracts the underlying business logic. That cryptic COBOL calculation becomes readable: "If asset type equals equity AND purchase date is before 2020, apply special accrual rate of 2.5%."
3. Self-Service Investigation
When your new system shows $15 and your old system shows $5, business analysts can immediately trace the calculation path. They see exactly why the difference exists: perhaps the new system doesn't account for that pre-2020 equity rule embedded in the legacy code.
4. Informed Decision-Making
Now your team can make strategic decisions: Do we want to replicate this legacy rule in the new system, or is this an opportunity to simplify our business logic? Instead of technical debugging, you're having business conversations.
Real-World Transformation: From 2 Months to 0.4% Exception Rate
Let me share a concrete example of this transformation in action. A financial services company was modernizing their core system and moving off their mainframe. Like many organizations, they were running parallel testing—executing the same transactions in both old and new systems to ensure consistency.
Before implementing AI-powered data lineage:
- Each reconciliation question took 2+ months to resolve
- SMEs were overwhelmed with investigation requests
- The business team felt dependent on scarce technical resources
- Project timelines were constantly slipping due to reconciliation delays
After implementing the solution:
- Business analysts could research discrepancies independently
- Investigation time dropped from months to minutes
- The team achieved a 0.4% exception resolution rate
- Project risk was dramatically reduced
"The business team presents their dashboard at the steering committee and program review every couple weeks," Truong shares. "Every time they ran into a break, they have a tool and the ability to answer why that break is there and how they plan to remediate it."
The New Reconciliation Methodology
The most successful migrations we've seen follow a fundamentally different approach to reconciliation:
Phase 1: Pre-Migration Intelligence
Before you migrate anything, understand what you're moving. Use AI to create a comprehensive map of your legacy system's business logic. Know the rules, conditions, and calculations that drive your current operations.
Phase 2: Predictive Testing
Instead of hoping for the best, use pattern recognition to identify the most likely sources of reconciliation breaks. Focus your testing efforts on the areas with the highest risk of discrepancies.
Phase 3: Real-Time Investigation
When breaks occur (and they will), empower your business team to investigate immediately. No more waiting for SME availability or technical resource allocation.
Phase 4: Strategic Decision-Making
Transform reconciliation from a technical debugging exercise into a business optimization opportunity. Decide which legacy rules to preserve and which to retire.
"The ability to catch that upfront, as opposed to not knowing it and waiting until you're testing pre go-live or in a parallel run and then discovering these things," Truong emphasizes. "That's why you will encounter missed budgets, timelines, etc. Because you just couldn't answer these critical questions upfront."
Beyond Migration: The Ongoing Value
Here's something most organizations don't consider: this capability doesn't become obsolete after your migration. You now have a living documentation system that can answer questions about your business logic indefinitely.
Need to understand why a customer's account behaves differently? Want to add a new product feature? Considering another system change? Your AI-powered lineage tool becomes a permanent asset for business intelligence and system understanding.
"When I say de-risk, not only do you de-risk a modernization program, but you also de-risk business operations," notes Truong. "Whether organizations are looking to leave their mainframe or keep their mainframe, leadership needs to make sure they have the tools that can empower their workforce to properly manage it."
The Bottom Line: Risk Mitigation vs. Risk Acceptance
Every migration involves risk. The question is whether you want to manage that risk proactively or react to problems as they emerge.
Traditional reconciliation approaches essentially accept risk—you hope the breaks will be manageable and that you can figure them out when they happen. AI-powered data lineage allows you to mitigate risk substantially by understanding your system completely before you make changes.
The choice is yours:
- Continue the cycle of expensive, time-consuming reconciliation archaeology
- Or transform your approach with intelligent, self-service system understanding
Ready to Transform Your Reconciliation Process?
If you're planning a migration or struggling with an ongoing reconciliation challenge, you don't have to accept the traditional pain points as inevitable. AI-powered data lineage has already transformed reconciliation for organizations managing everything from simple CRM migrations to complex mainframe modernizations.
Schedule a demo to explore how AI can turn your legacy "black box" into transparent, understandable business intelligence.
You may also like
The "I" in CIO has always stood for Information, but in 2026 that responsibility takes on new urgency.
As the market pours resources into AI and enterprises face mounting pressure to manage it - whether deploying it internally, partnering with third parties who use it, or satisfying regulators who demand clarity on its use - the CIO's priority isn't another technology platform. It's data lineage and provenance as an unwavering capability.
This is what separates CIOs who treat technology management as an operational function from those who deliver trustworthy information as a strategic outcome.
Three Industry Drivers Making Data Lineage Urgent
Three industry drivers make this imperative urgent:
First, AI's transformative impact on business: Gartner reports that, despite an average spend of $1.9 million on GenAI initiatives in 2024, less than 30% of AI leaders report their CEOs are happy with AI investment return—largely because organizations struggle to verify their data's fitness for AI use.
Second, the massive workforce retirement in legacy technology: 79% cited their top mainframe-related challenge is acquiring the right resources and skills to get work done, according to Forrester Research, as seasoned experts retire and take decades of institutional knowledge about critical data flows with them.
Third, the ever-increasing regulatory landscape: Cybersecurity vulnerabilities, data governance, and regulatory compliance are three of the most common risk areas expected to be included in 2026 internal audit plans, with regulators demanding verifiable data lineage across industries.
As the enterprise's Information Officer, the CIO must be accountable for the organization's ability to produce and trust information - not just operate technology systems. Understanding the complete journey of data, from origin through every transformation to final use, supports every strategic outcome CIOs need to deliver: enabling AI capabilities, satisfying regulatory requirements, and partnering confidently with third parties. Data lineage provides the technical foundation that makes trustworthy information possible across the enterprise.
The Burning Platform: Why CIOs Must Act Now
Three forces converge to create a burning platform:
First, regulatory compliance demands now span every industry - from BCBS-239 and DORA in financial services to HIPAA in healthcare to SEC analytics requirements across public companies. Regulators are enforcing data lineage mandates with substantial penalties.
Second, every business needs to demonstrate AI innovation, yet AI initiatives succeed or fail based on verified training data quality and explainability.
Third, in a connected world demanding "always on," enterprises must be agile enough to globally partner with third parties, whether serving customers through partner ecosystems or trusting data from their own vendors and service providers.
The urgency intensifies because mainframe systems house decades of critical business logic while the workforce that understands these systems is retiring, making automated lineage extraction essential before institutional knowledge disappears.
What Enterprise-Wide Data Lineage Capability Requires
Given these converging pressures, CIOs need enterprise-wide data lineage capability that captures information flows across the entire technology landscape, including legacy systems. This means automated lineage extraction from mainframes, mid-tier applications, cloud platforms, and third-party integrations - creating a comprehensive map of how data moves and transforms throughout the organization.
Manual documentation fails because it can't keep pace with system complexity and depends on human compliance. The solution requires technology that captures lineage at the technical level where data actually flows, then makes this intelligence accessible for business understanding.
For mainframe environments specifically, this means extracting lineage from COBOL and RPG code before retiring experts leave. The strategic outcome: a single, verifiable source of truth about data provenance that serves regulatory needs, AI development, and partnership confidence simultaneously.
From Operational Execution to Strategic Accountability
This shift elevates the CIO's accountability from operational execution to strategic outcomes. Rather than simply providing systems, CIOs become accountable for the infrastructure that proves information integrity and lineage.
This transforms conversations with boards and regulators from "we operate technology systems" to "we can verify our information's complete journey and quality"—a fundamentally stronger position.
The CIO role expands from technology delivery to information assurance, directly supporting enterprise risk management, innovation initiatives, and strategic partnerships through verifiable capability.
Three Strategic Business Outcomes from Data Lineage
Ultimately, data lineage capability delivers three strategic business outcomes:
- Regulatory compliance transforms from expensive fire drills into routine capability—examiners receive complete, accurate lineage documentation on demand across multiple industry requirements.
- AI and analytics initiatives launch faster with confidence because teams can verify training data quality, understand transformations, and explain model inputs to stakeholders and regulators.
- Third-party partnerships expand safely because the enterprise can verify data quality across organizational boundaries, whether integrating partner data to serve customers or trusting vendor information for operations.
The enterprise moves from defensive compliance postures to offensive information leverage, with the CIO providing infrastructure that turns data into a strategic asset rather than a regulatory liability.
For CIOs in 2026, owning Information means proving it - and data lineage is what makes that promise possible.
To learn more about how Zengines can support your data lineage priorities, schedule a call with our team.
Every enterprise eventually faces a pivotal question: should we connect our systems together, or move our data to a new home entirely? The answer seems simple until you're staring at a 40-year-old mainframe with dwindling support, a dozen point solutions held together by ever-growing integrations, and a budget that doesn't accommodate mistakes.
Data migration and data integration are often confused because they both involve moving data. But they serve fundamentally different purposes - and choosing the wrong approach can cost you years of technical debt, millions in maintenance, or worse, a failed transformation project.
The Fundamental Difference
Data migration is about transition and consolidation.
Systems reach end-of-life. Platforms get replaced. Acquisitions require consolidation. Companies outgrow their technology stack and need to move from functionally siloed point solutions to consolidated platforms.
Migration addresses all of these - relocating data from a source system to a target, transforming it to fit the new data model, then retiring the source. The result is a cleaner footprint: fewer systems, fewer dependencies, a tidier architecture.
Data integration is about coexistence.
You're connecting systems so they can share data continuously, in real-time or near-real-time. Both systems stay alive. Think of it like building a bridge between two cities - traffic flows both directions, indefinitely.
On the surface, integration can seem more appealing - it preserves optionality and avoids the hard decision of retiring systems. But optionality has carrying costs. Every bridge you build is a bridge you must maintain, monitor, and update when either system changes. Migration delivers a leaner architecture with less operational overhead.
When Migration Is the Right Choice
Migration makes sense when you're ready to consolidate and simplify - especially for operational systems.
Consider migration when:
When Integration Is the Right Choice
Integration makes sense when systems genuinely need to coexist and communicate -- particularly for analytical use cases.
Consider integration when:
The Hidden Costs of Each Approach
Migration: Historically Front-Loaded - But That's Changing
Migration projects have traditionally been expensive upfront. Research shows that over 80% of data migration projects run over time or budget. A 2021 Forbes analysis found that 64% of data migrations exceed their forecast budget, with 54% overrunning on time.
But here's what those statistics don't capture: much of this cost and risk stems from outdated approaches to migration. Legacy migration projects often relied on manual analysis, hand-coded transformation scripts, and armies of consultants reverse-engineering undocumented systems. The migration itself wasn't inherently expensive - the lack of proper tooling made it expensive.
When migration succeeds, you have a clean slate. The old system is retired. There's no pipeline to maintain, no nightly sync jobs to monitor, no integration layer to update when either system changes. You've reduced your technology footprint.
Integration: Lower Entry Cost, Compounding Maintenance
Integration appears easier at first. You're not touching the legacy data - you're just building a bridge. The upfront cost looks manageable. But that bridge requires constant attention.
According to McKinsey, the "interest" on technical debt includes the complexity tax from "fragile point-to-point or batch data integrations." Engineering teams spend an average of 33% of their time managing technical debt, according to research from Stripe. When you build an integration instead of migrating, you're committing to that maintenance indefinitely.
Gartner estimates that about 40% of infrastructure systems across asset classes already carry significant technical debt. Organizations that ignore this debt spend up to 40% more on maintenance than peers who address it early.
The key insight: integration's "lower cost" is an illusion if you only look at upfront spend. When you factor in total cost of ownership - years of maintenance, incident response, and the opportunity cost of engineers maintaining pipes instead of building value - the calculus often favors migration.
The Real Trade-Off: Optionality vs. Simplicity
Integration preserves optionality. You can defer the retirement decision. You can keep both systems running while you figure out the long-term strategy. But optionality has carrying costs, and those costs compound over time.
Migration forces a constraint - and constraints drive clarity. When you commit to migration, you're forced to answer hard questions: What data do we actually need? What's the canonical source of truth? What business rules should govern this data going forward? The result is a tidier, more intentional data architecture.
Many organizations choose integration because migration feels too hard. But "too hard" often means "too hard to decide." Integration lets you defer decisions. Migration forces them - and in doing so, delivers a cleaner outcome.
A Framework for Deciding
Ask yourself these questions:
- Is this an operational system or an analytical use case? Operational systems benefit from migration's cleaner footprint -- fewer moving parts means faster troubleshooting and simpler maintenance. Analytical use cases often fit integration naturally, since you're aggregating data for reporting rather than running day-to-day operations.
- Is the source system being retired? If yes, you need migration. Integration with a system you're decommissioning is just deferred work.
- Are you consolidating multiple systems into one platform? If yes, you need migration. You can't integrate your way into a different data model -- the data has to move and transform.
- Do both systems genuinely need to stay alive? If yes, and they serve truly different purposes with no consolidation path, integration makes sense.
- What's your appetite for ongoing maintenance? Integration is a subscription you pay forever. Migration is a one-time investment with long-term dividends.
- What does compliance require? If regulators need data to physically reside in a specific system, integration won't satisfy that requirement.
The Bottom Line
For years, integration was perceived as the lesser evil - not because it was the right choice, but because migration seemed too expensive and risky. Organizations built integrations they didn't really want because migration felt out of reach.
That calculation is changing. Modern migration platforms are lowering the barrier to making the right choice - automating the analysis, transformation, and validation work that used to require armies of consultants. When migration's entry cost drops, total cost of ownership (TCO) becomes the deciding factor. And on TCO, migration often wins.
If you're modernizing legacy systems, consolidating point solutions into an ERP, or keeping operational systems lean for faster troubleshooting, migration gives you a cleaner footprint and eliminates technical debt. Yes, it requires commitment upfront. But you're trading short-term focus for long-term simplicity.
If you're feeding analytical systems, connecting platforms that both serve ongoing purposes, or need real-time data flow between coexisting systems, integration is the right tool. Just go in with your eyes open about the maintenance commitment you're making.
The worst outcome is choosing integration because migration seemed too hard - and then spending the next decade maintaining pipes to systems you should have retired years ago.
Zengines is an AI-native data migration platform built to lower the barrier to making the right choice. If you're weighing migration against integration - or stuck maintaining integrations you wish were migrations - we'd love to show you what's now possible. Let's talk.
If you're evaluating Zengines for your data migration or data lineage projects, one of your first questions is likely: "Where will this run, and where will our data live?"
It's a critical question. Data migrations involve your most sensitive information, and your choice of deployment architecture impacts everything from security and compliance to speed-to-value and ongoing management.
The good news? Zengines offers four deployment options designed to meet different organizational needs. This guide will help you understand each option and identify which might be the best fit for your situation.
Understanding Your Deployment Options
Option 1: Zengines Hosted (AWS US Region)
What it is: Fully managed SaaS deployment in US-based AWS data centers
Who it's designed for:
- Organizations based primarily in the United States
- Teams who need to start analyzing and migrating data quickly
- Teams who are focusing on their business transformation and don’t want to manage all the moving pieces associated with data migrations
- Projects where regulatory requirements don't mandate specific data residency
Key benefits:
- Fastest time to value: You can typically begin working with your data within days of signing up
- Zero infrastructure overhead: No need to provision servers, manage updates, or monitor performance—Zengines handles all of that
- Predictable, straightforward pricing: Standard subscription model with no infrastructure management costs
What to consider: If your organization has data sovereignty requirements (especially for EU data), strict requirements about data leaving your environment, or compliance frameworks that restrict US-based cloud processing, one of the other options below may be a better fit.
Option 2: Zengines Hosted (AWS Non-US Region)
What it is: Fully managed SaaS deployment in your preferred AWS region (EU, APAC, etc.)
Who it's designed for:
- International organizations with regional data residency requirements
- Companies subject to GDPR or other regional data protection regulations
- Teams who want managed SaaS simplicity without US jurisdiction concerns
Key benefits:
- Regional compliance: Meets data sovereignty requirements while maintaining all Zengines capabilities
- Same fast deployment: No compromise on speed or features compared to US hosting
- Still fully managed: Zengines continues to handle all infrastructure, updates, and monitoring
What to consider: While this addresses data residency, it's still a multi-tenant architecture with data processed in Zengines' cloud environment. If your compliance framework requires dedicated infrastructure or data that never leaves your environment, consider Option 3.
Option 3: Zengines Deployed on Your AWS Cloud Account
What it is: Zengines deployed entirely within your own AWS environment under your control
Who it's designed for:
- Financial services, healthcare, and government organizations with stringent compliance requirements
- Enterprises with security frameworks that prohibit multi-tenant SaaS or require tenant isolation at the account level
- Organizations that need administrative control over the compute environment and network boundaries
- Companies with mature AWS environments and DevOps capabilities
Key benefits:
- Complete data sovereignty: Your data never leaves your environment
- Maximum control: You define and enforce all security policies, access controls, and compliance measures
- Dedicated infrastructure: No multi-tenant concerns; this is your exclusive Zengines instance
- Integration with your security tools: Deploy within your existing security perimeter and monitoring systems
What to consider:
- Setup time: Deployment typically takes 2-3 weeks rather than days
- Resource requirements: Your IT team needs to provision AWS resources and support the deployment
- Additional costs: This option includes additional support fees for Zengines to assist with deployment, configuration, and optimization
- Prerequisites: You'll need an existing AWS environment and team members familiar with managing AWS infrastructure
Technical requirements: Zengines will provide detailed specifications for EC2 instances, storage, and AWS services needed. Having this conversation early with your infrastructure team helps ensure smooth deployment.
Option 4: Zengines on Azure or Google Cloud Platform (In Development)
What it is: Private cloud deployment on your Azure or GCP environment
Who it's designed for:
- Organizations with significant commitments to Azure or Google Cloud
- Companies whose cloud strategy or enterprise agreements make AWS deployment impractical
Current status: As of September 2025, multi-cloud support is in active development. If your organization has strong Azure or GCP requirements, we'd welcome a conversation about timeline and potential early adopter partnerships.
What to consider: If you need Zengines capabilities today and your only concern is cloud platform, Option 3 (AWS Cloud Account) might serve as a bridge solution until your preferred platform is supported.
Making Your Decision: Key Questions to Ask
As you evaluate which deployment option fits your needs, consider these questions:
Regulatory and Compliance:
- Do we have specific data residency requirements (geographic restrictions on where data can be processed)?
- Are we subject to regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, or financial services compliance frameworks?
- Does our compliance framework require dedicated infrastructure?
Infrastructure and Resources:
- Do we have an existing AWS, Azure, or GCP environment?
- Do we have DevOps or infrastructure team members who can support Zengines deployment on our cloud account?
- What's our organizational comfort level with managing cloud infrastructure?
Timeline and Urgency:
- How quickly do we need to begin analyzing and migrating data?
- Is a 2-3 week deployment timeframe acceptable, or do we need to start within days?
Security Requirements:
- Does our security framework allow data processing in external cloud environments?
- Do we require dedicated infrastructure, or is secure multi-tenant architecture acceptable?
- What level of control do we need over the processing environment?
Budget Considerations:
- What's our budget for not just software licensing but also infrastructure support?
- Do we have budget for the additional support costs associated with private cloud deployment?
Comparing Your Options at a Glance
What Happens After You Choose?
- For Options 1 & 2 (Zengines Hosted): After you sign up, you'll receive access credentials within 1-2 business days. You can immediately begin creating projects, uploading schemas, and working with data. Our team will schedule an onboarding and training session to help you get started.
- For Option 3 (Your AWS): We'll schedule a technical workshop with your infrastructure team to review requirements, discuss your AWS environment, and plan the deployment. Zengines will provide detailed specifications and work alongside your team through the setup process. Once deployed, you'll receive training for both end users and administrators.
- For Option 4 (Azure/GCP): If you're interested in Azure or GCP deployment, let's have a conversation about your timeline and requirements to better estimate the development effort.
Getting Started
Choosing the right deployment architecture is an important decision, but it shouldn't slow down your evaluation. Here's how to move forward:
- Start with an assessment of your compliance, security, and resource requirements using the questions above
- Have a conversation with our team about your specific situation—we've helped dozens of organizations navigate this decision
- Involve your stakeholders early: Security, compliance, and infrastructure teams should be part of the conversation from the beginning
- Consider a phased approach: Some organizations start with Option 1 or 2 for initial projects, then move to Option 3 as they expand usage
- Don't let deployment questions stop progress: We can work with you on pilot projects using sample data while larger deployment decisions are being made
Data migration and mainframe modernization are complex enough without worrying about whether your tools can work within your architecture. Zengines' flexible deployment options mean you don't have to compromise between the capabilities you need and the compliance, security, or infrastructure requirements you must meet.
Whether you need to start analyzing data tomorrow (hosted options) or require complete control within your own infrastructure (private cloud), there's a path forward.
Ready to discuss which deployment option fits your needs? Contact our team to start the conversation. We'll ask the right questions, understand your requirements, and help you make a confident decision.
Subscribe to our Insights
.png)
Accelerate and de-risk data projects by 80%.
