A software migration guide describes a destination, while a legacy manual describes the system a team already uses. Studying them together in NotebookLM can reveal renamed settings, changed defaults, removed features, and prerequisites. The output is a migration evidence map that keeps documented changes separate from assumptions about your own configuration.
Primary sources checked on 8 October 2026. Worked examples and sample records below are illustrative; they do not represent product tests or real customer findings.
Naming note: Google’s current help pages use Gemini Notebook. This article retains NotebookLM in the task title so readers can connect the workflow to their existing notebooks; follow the current labels shown in your account.
Record the starting and target versions
Identify the installed product version, target version, edition, deployment mode, and relevant integrations. Save the legacy manual and migration guide that actually match those versions. A generic current documentation page may skip intermediate changes. A guide for a hosted service may not describe a self-managed installation.
Define the migration surface: configuration, data format, API calls, authentication, or operational behavior. Keep a manifest of the files and versions included. The notebook’s task is to connect documented changes to items requiring review, not to execute an upgrade or declare it safe from a summary. A migration plan still needs local technical validation.
Prepare readable and versioned sources
Use official manuals, release notes, migration instructions, and your approved configuration inventory. Label each source with version and date. Remove secrets from any configuration examples before import. Preserve setting names and code blocks carefully because punctuation or capitalization can change their meaning.
Inspect the imported viewer against the original. A source-grounded notebook can only analyze the material it actually received. If a web import omits linked references, add the relevant official pages separately. Do not assume the migration guide automatically brings every dependency document into the notebook. Keep a clear boundary between vendor instructions and your organization’s configuration observations.
Compare one behavior at a time
Ask for a table mapping legacy setting, target equivalent, documented change, prerequisite, and citation. Require separate treatment of renamed, removed, and changed-default items. A renamed setting can preserve behavior; an unchanged name can conceal a new default. Avoid using text similarity as the only indicator of migration impact.
In an illustrative case, an old timeout parameter remains available but its default differs in the target release. The map should identify the change and ask whether the team depends on the old value. It should not invent the team’s answer. Supply the reviewed configuration inventory as a separate source if you want the notebook to locate explicit local dependencies.
Expose unsupported mappings
Tell the notebook to mark a missing target equivalent unresolved rather than proposing a plausible replacement. Check each mapping in the official source through its citation. A similarly named target feature may behave differently or require another component. The absence of a mapping in your source set is not proof that the vendor provides no supported route.
Create a gap list for missing version jumps, unsupported extensions, and ambiguous instructions. Assign each gap a primary-document search or a technical owner. Keep the proposed answer separate from the approved migration decision. This prevents a fluent table from becoming an unreviewed change script.
Turn evidence into an acceptance checklist
For each consequential change, write a test that checks the intended behavior before and after migration. Examples include preserving a file format, reproducing a known API response, or confirming a timeout under a controlled condition. Use representative inputs and explicit expected results. Do not merely test that the new setting name exists.
Include a rollback consideration and any backup prerequisite from the official guide. Keep execution decisions with the project’s technical owner. The notebook can help identify and organize these requirements, but it cannot prove that a backup restores successfully or that a dependency works in your environment. Label unexecuted checks clearly.
Publish the migration evidence map
The finished map should connect every required action to its source and affected local item. Add an owner, validation status, and unresolved dependency. Keep steps in a sensible order where the primary guide establishes prerequisites. Do not infer ordering from the order in which chat happened to list them.
Save the map, source versions, configuration inventory, and later test results together. When the target version changes, refresh the relevant rows before reusing the plan. A good migration notebook reduces overlooked changes while keeping documented requirements, local assumptions, and verified behavior distinct.
Review and preserve the finished migration evidence map
Before handing over the result, perform a review that starts from the evidence rather than the generated prose. Pick a clearly supported item, a disputed item, and an item with missing information. Write the expected treatment of each before reading the proposed conclusions. Then open the cited originals and compare the result with those expectations. Check the surrounding text, headings, dates, and qualifications, because a citation can point to the correct document while supporting a narrower statement.
Ask a colleague to use the finished deliverable without your explanation. They should be able to locate the original records, identify unresolved questions, and understand which statements are direct evidence and which are your interpretation. Revise any place where they must guess. Keep the reviewed output, source manifest, prompt, and correction history together. Record the review date and the event that should trigger another check. When a source changes, preserve the earlier assessment and explain which conclusions were affected rather than silently replacing the evidence.
Do not equate an empty result with the absence of a problem. Check that all intended inputs were included and readable. Explain exclusions and merged records. A useful handover makes incompleteness visible and assigns a next action to the person who can resolve it.
Frequently asked questions
Can a notebook generate the upgrade script?
It may draft code, but this evidence workflow should first establish mappings and require technical review before execution.
Does a renamed setting imply changed behavior?
Not always. Compare the documented semantics and defaults, not just labels.
What if an equivalent is missing?
Mark it unresolved and seek an official mapping rather than inventing one.
Should real credentials be imported?
No. Use sanitized configuration evidence with the necessary structure preserved.
What makes the map complete?
Version-matched sources, reviewed change mappings, local dependencies, owners, and explicit acceptance checks.
