Migration Analysis

Two analysis workflows for different stages of a migration project. Pick by the file the user uploads, not by asking.

Workflow selection

When the user uploads a file:

1. Multi-tab .xlsx with "Site Content" or "Ranking KWs" tab → Workflow 1. Read references/workflow-1-content-ia-review.md in full.
2. Single .csv with Title 1, Sessions, Impressions, Ahrefs Rank style columns → Workflow 2. Read references/workflow-2-full-migration-analysis.md in full.
3. Ambiguous — auto-detect tab/column structure first, then confirm with the user.

If the user names a workflow explicitly ("run the content review", "do the full migration analysis"), skip detection.

Workflow 1 — fast path

After loading the workbook, ask which output:

• A. Bulleted risk list only (email/Slack ready) — fastest, ~80% of value
• B. Page-by-page audit spreadsheet (working doc)
• C. Both

Critical tabs: Site Content (proposed IA + URLs + KW targets), Ranking KWs (Ahrefs export), SF Scan (current crawl), and content tabs (Accommodations / Offers / etc.).

Risk categories to flag — see references/workflow-1-content-ia-review.md for the full checklist. The headline ones:

• IA orphans — current URLs with rankings or inlinks that have no destination in the new IA
• Silent consolidations — multiple current URLs collapsing into one new page with no redirect note
• KW/page mismatches — page is targeting keyword X but currently ranks for Y
• Thin new sections — Wellness / Membership / Spa style sections expanded to multiple pages without source content
• Copy gaps — accommodation/restaurant copy missing geographic + brand signals
• Empty placeholder pages — sections with no content status that will launch blank
• Typos in approved copy

Output is written to be shared directly with the dev partner or client. Keep it specific, free of SEO jargon, actionable.

Workflow 2 — fast path

Confirm context quickly:

Site URL: ?
SF crawl date: ?
API ranges (GA4 / GSC / Ahrefs): ?
Business type: ?
Migration goals: ?
Priority sections / concerns: ?

If the user says "just analyze this migration," extract from the data and proceed.

Then run the seven phases (see references/workflow-2-full-migration-analysis.md for full detail):

1. Data integration & validation
2. Page segmentation
3. Keyword intelligence
4. Content quality assessment
5. Link equity mapping
6. Decision matrix tiering (Tier 1 Must Migrate / Tier 2 Migrate with Improvements / Tier 3 Consolidate / Tier 4 Redirect or Remove)
7. Risk assessment + quick wins

Deliverables:

• Executive summary
• Page-level migration plan (CSV) — URL, tier, action, new URL recommendation, priority score, top KWs, traffic, backlinks, notes
• Consolidation opportunities map
• Risk register (Tier-1 + 50+ backlink pages + non-brand top-3 rankers)
• Keyword cannibalization report
• Technical SEO priorities (redirect chains, schema, internal linking)
• Content improvement roadmap

Domain handling

If the site is a hospitality property (hotel, resort, restaurant group), also read references/hospitality-special-handling.md. Room/accommodation thin-page sprawl, restaurant page ranking equity, and local + brand signal preservation are the recurring traps.

For other verticals, apply the same principles to their equivalent landing-page systems (e-commerce category pages, B2B SaaS use-case pages, etc.).

Analysis principles (apply to both workflows)

• Data over opinions — base decisions on metrics, not assumptions
• Traffic preservation — when in doubt, protect existing traffic
• Revenue and conversions outweigh volume — high-converting pages need protection even at modest traffic
• Traffic concentration is the primary risk lens — top 5–10 pages typically carry 90%+ of value
• Missing redirects are more dangerous than imperfect ones — gaps are the highest-priority fix
• Content that looks like blog posts can be landing pages — always cross-reference engagement data before recommending removal
• Link equity matters — external backlinks are precious, don't waste them
• Simplification is good — fewer, better pages outperform sprawl
• Thin content on key landing pages is a pre-launch blocker

Development partner workflow note (the dev partner pattern)

Typical sequence:

1. Content written and approved
2. IA defined in the project tracker
3. Meta titles, descriptions, recommended URLs come later
4. Redirects arrive days before launch

Workflow 1 is the primary leverage point. By the time redirects arrive, content and IA are locked. Catching issues at the content approval stage is what changes outcomes.

Watch list in these workbooks:

• Content approved without keyword cross-referencing
• New sections expanded beyond what the property can support with real content
• Multiple current URLs being consolidated without explicit redirect notes
• Current pages with significant rankings or inlinks that don't appear in the new IA
• Placeholder sections with no content status
• Copy missing geographic and brand signals (hospitality especially)

Data validation (both workflows)

When files arrive, automatically check:

• Presence of expected tabs/columns
• Data completeness (missing values, null fields)
• URL format consistency (trailing slashes, http vs https, www)
• Total page count vs crawl completeness
• Cross-referencing between sources — ranking URLs that don't appear in the SF crawl, GSC URLs not in the workbook, etc.

Flag any issues before producing the analysis.