Use this software handover acceptance checklist to decide which operating tasks a receiving team can accept for a stated system version. Pharos Production's custom software development services describe engineering delivery and written planning for major vendor dependencies. Use the pack to request the receiving evidence your engagement will include.

This is a reusable worksheet for a planned transition into operation. It contains a blank working database, field definitions and an explicitly fictional review. It records no completed customer handover or executed build, deployment or recovery exercise.

Set the receiving boundary

Before adding checks, agree the system, environment, source revision, deployed release and operating tasks being transferred. Name the receiving decision owner and the outgoing team's remaining duties. Record dependencies that stay with a cloud provider or another supplier. Repository ownership alone does not establish authority over those services.

Use one database row for one acceptance check against that boundary. Split a check when its tasks can reach different outcomes. For example, producing an artifact and restoring application attachments need separate criteria and evidence. Keep the agreed boundary with each row so a passing staging check cannot be mistaken for production acceptance.

Google SRE's engagement model describes service-specific readiness reviews before a team assumes production responsibility. The fields and decision rules here are an editorial template, not a prescribed Google standard.

Review the six handover areas

  1. System scope and versions: identify included components, environment, release and configuration references. List excluded operating tasks and continuing external dependencies.
  2. Repository and control access: have the receiving role verify the agreed source, artifact and administration paths. Record account ownership and approved authority separately from possession of a repository URL. Reference controlled access records without copying credentials into the pack.
  3. Receiving-team build: name the commit, dependency versions, build environment, instructions and expected artifact. Retain the receiver's run reference and any outgoing-team intervention. A successful build demonstrates its stated conditions. Claiming reproducibility requires the stronger artifact comparison described below.
  4. Deployment and rollback: identify who approves and executes each action, the target environment, verification step and safe stopping condition. State what a rollback can leave behind, including data or external effects. Attach evidence for the agreed boundary rather than assuming a previous release can reverse every change.
  5. Recovery evidence: name the backup scope, recovery environment, configuration and required dependent objects. Define the service behavior the receiver must verify. A database-only restoration cannot establish recovery of attachments stored elsewhere.
  6. Acceptance and open conditions: assign the receiving reviewer, decision owner and next action for every unresolved required check. Preserve the responsibility that remains with the outgoing team until a recorded decision changes it.

Reproducible Builds defines reproducibility through bit-for-bit identical specified artifacts from the same source, environment and instructions. If that is a requirement, record the artifact comparison and its conditions. A second successful compilation without that comparison is only the narrower build check.

Use the blank working database

Duplicate this page into your workspace to edit the child database, Working Handover Checks. Start in a private copy before adding project information. The public original has zero assessment records; the fictional example below stays outside it.

Keep private evidence in approved storage and record a usable reference. Do not add secrets, customer records or private system identifiers to this public template. Leave unknown owners and dates blank while keeping the check Pending.

Field Type What to record
Check Title One operating task or acceptance check
System and environment Text Included component, target environment and scope boundary
Artifact and version Text Source revision, release and relevant configuration references
Acceptance criterion Text The observable result the receiver agreed to inspect
Evidence reference Text Controlled record, section or run reference and its observation limits
Receiving reviewer Text Role or person who reviews the evidence in your private copy
Outgoing owner Text Role responsible for supplying evidence or correcting the gap
Required gate Select Required or Optional, agreed before review
Outcome Select Pending, Accept or Hold
Exception and next action Text Missing condition, responsible owner, remedy and review deadline
Retained responsibility Text Who still owns the affected operating task while it remains open
Review date Date Actual review date, entered when the review occurs

The Table view shows all checks. Required gates filters Required gate to Required. A view filter does not restrict access to underlying records. There is no readiness formula or weighted score: the receiving owner must make the bounded acceptance decision.

Apply the decision rules