Our summary
Moving a company's software can break a report or job that depends on it. This thought piece starts by mapping those relationships, so an agent can see what a proposed change would touch. Its current focus is a planned Google Cloud architecture, not the older Graphs + Jev field guide.
The plan gives different jobs to different tools: connections reach existing systems, a graph records dependencies, Jev would judge routine choices and Gemini would handle larger tasks. Exact counting and validation stay in code. A browser example lights up a request's path through fifteen sample facts.
The live demonstrations use small in-memory graphs and fixed rules. They do not call Jev, run the proposed tool connections or prove safe migrations. The suggested starting point is one domain and one migration pattern, measured before expansion. This is an illustration, not a commercial migration service.
Key takeaways
- Map the jobs and reports that depend on a system before deciding whether to change it.
- Keep exact checks in code, and limit each agent to the system connections its task needs.
- The sample demos work with fixed rules; the cloud architecture is still proposed. Measure one migration pattern before expanding it.