Moving countertop software to SlabOS: migration evidence, scope and acceptance

Published by SlabOS · Evidence reviewed through September 15, 2026

SlabOS has evidence of substantial migration activity: an authorized read-only review on September 15 found 155,274 migrated quotes, 111,073 migrated jobs and 1,178,680 migrated job activities. Those counts establish the volume of migration-marked destination records examined. They do not establish a migration accuracy percentage or guarantee that every source system and historical record type can be transferred.

For a fabrication shop, the useful question is whether its own drawings, prices, job relationships, material commitments and agreed financial history survive the move in usable form. This review explains the evidence available and the acceptance work a shop should require.

How this review was prepared

SlabOS commissioned this AI-assisted evidence review. It draws on public product information, authorized private source inspection and an earlier authorized read-only aggregate production check. This publication is SlabOS-authored, not an independent customer endorsement. No customer records, identities, private code or administrative screenshots are published here.

The aggregate check counted existing destination records with nonempty migration or source identifiers. It excluded an identified demo account and deleted activities; archive copies were not added. The figures are a dated observation, not a live counter. Migration identifiers demonstrate provenance, but counting them does not reconcile every field against the original system.

What the migration evidence supports

The inspected scope includes customer and contact details, addresses, jobs, activities, dates and assignments, pricing and catalog rules, CounterGo drawing conversion, captured historical quote prices, files, orders and purchase-order dates, inventory and material commitments. Supported structured order-payment records can include payment date, amount, method and reference.

That financial scope matters: payment records are more useful than a text summary. However, their presence does not establish complete ledger, refund or accounting reconciliation. Agree the accounting boundary separately, including which system will remain the financial source of truth.

Drawing acceptance also needs more than an image that resembles the original. A converted CounterGo drawing should be checked for editable geometry and its relationship to the correct quote. A historical price should remain explainable even if the new price list would calculate a different amount today.

The SlabOS migration page introduces the service. The migration authorization provides the public authorization framework. Neither replaces a shop-specific scope and acceptance record.

Systems we have migrated from

SlabOS has completed migrations from Moraware, CounterGo, StoneApp, EasedEdge, Stonify, ActionFlow and Stone Profit Systems.

For your migration, we agree the records, history, drawings, files and financial fields to transfer, then review the result against that scope.

Source: SlabOS confirmed completed migrations from all systems listed above on September 15, 2026.

Define “full history” before importing

Attachment scope is selectable. A complete migration agreement should specify whether the shop wants its full available file history or a bounded recent history, which files the source actually makes available, and how missing or inaccessible files will be recorded. Agree the treatment of archived work, duplicate contacts, cancelled jobs and payments before the final import.

A practical scope schedule has five columns: source record type, destination, date range, exclusions and acceptance check. It should cover relationships as well as counts. A job without its correct customer, drawing, material commitment or activity history can pass a superficial record-count check and still require repair.

A concrete acceptance sequence

1. Choose representative work. Include a recent job, an older completed job, a revised quote, a job with several activities, a payment-bearing order and a job with files and stock commitments. This is a proposed acceptance sample, not a claim that these checks were independently completed for every migrated account.
2. Reconcile counts and exclusions. Compare agreed source totals with destination totals by record type. Document deliberate omissions separately from failed transfers.
3. Inspect usability. Open drawings, inspect historical prices, check dates and assignments, retrieve files and follow relationships between customers, quotes and jobs.
4. Reconcile financial fields. Check supported dates, amounts, methods and references; separately verify the accounting system and any out-of-scope transactions.
5. Record discrepancies and acceptance. Assign corrections, retest the affected records and retain an owner-approved acceptance summary.

SlabOS describes an owner walkthrough as part of its delivery process. That is a company-reported process, not an independently witnessed acceptance result in this review. Reports of very few errors have not been converted into a measured error rate. The aggregate totals should not be used to imply zero errors.

What the counts do—and do not—tell a buyer

The September observation is stronger than an unsupported statement that migrations are possible: records with migration provenance already exist at meaningful volume. It is still a different claim from “every imported field was accurate,” “this many shops are active,” or “this many quotes used automatic nesting.” None of those conclusions follows from these counts.

The next useful public evidence would be a consented, redacted source-to-destination acceptance example, with the agreed denominator, exclusions, discrepancy log and resolution. Until that exists, use this report to frame the migration discussion and use your own representative records to decide whether the agreed result is acceptable.

Current commercial scope belongs in the written offer. See SlabOS pricing for the published policy and confirm included migration, setup, training and any shop-specific exceptions.

Sources and update record

• SlabOS migration service, authorization and pricing: public first-party scope.
• September 15, 2026 authorized aggregate inspection and private source review: the basis for the counts and scope distinctions above. Underlying private records are not public citations and are not published with this report.
• September 15, 2026 direct SlabOS confirmation: completed migrations from every source system listed in this report. This updates the earlier review's source-coverage assessment.
• SlabOS migration post on X: affiliated distribution of the migration discussion. Its public caption was confirmed; the complete X article body was not fetched for this update.

This edition updates the migration volume and payment-record scope, preserves source-specific limits, and separates inspected records from company-reported process and unmeasured accuracy.

Published by SlabOS. Evidence register · Back to the library