A successful SharePoint and Microsoft Purview proof of concept does not automatically mean a records management solution is ready for production. Before rollout, an organization should validate the approved file plan, retention requirements, feature licensing, security model, legal hold procedures, workflow failure handling, audit evidence, and operational ownership.
Use the checklist below to identify what has been proven, what remains uncertain, and who must approve each decision. The checklist is a planning aid, not a certification of regulatory compliance or a substitute for legal, records-management, security, or licensing advice.
1. Records governance and file plan
- [ ] Business owners have approved the record classes and
- definitions.
- [ ] The file plan reflects actual business processes.
- [ ] Required metadata and content types have been defined.
- [ ] Ownership and taxonomy change control are documented.
- [ ] Retention requirements have been reviewed and approved by the
- appropriate owners.
- [ ] Trigger events, exceptions, and disposition responsibilities are
- documented.
- [ ] Physical and electronic records are distinguished where their
- processes differ.
2. SharePoint architecture
- [ ] Site, library, list, and permission boundaries have a clear
- rationale.
- [ ] The structure supports expected retrieval and navigation tasks.
- [ ] Required metadata is usable and validated.
- [ ] Search and filtering scenarios have been tested.
- [ ] Permissions have been tested with representative user roles.
- [ ] The design has been reviewed for maintainability and scale.
- [ ] The team has documented administrative ownership and support
- procedures.
3. Microsoft Purview configuration and licensing
- [ ] The necessary Purview features are available under the intended
- licenses.
- [ ] Retention policies and labels map to approved requirements.
- [ ] The intended scope and application method have been tested.
- [ ] Retention triggers and lifecycle behavior are understood.
- [ ] Disposition review behavior has been verified where used.
- [ ] Records management controls are distinguished from descriptive
- metadata.
- [ ] Configuration decisions and limitations are documented.
- [ ] Current Microsoft documentation has been reviewed.
4. Physical records inventory and destruction approval
- [ ] Inventory identifiers are defined and duplicate handling is
- tested.
- [ ] Storage location, owner, class, review date, and status fields
- are clear.
- [ ] Coordinator, business owner, and records manager
- responsibilities are documented.
- [ ] The approval flow validates required fields.
- [ ] Approval and rejection paths have been tested.
- [ ] Authorization is distinguished from actual destruction
- completion.
- [ ] Hold and exception checks are part of the approved process.
- [ ] Failures, duplicate triggers, and unavailable approvers have a
- recovery path.
- [ ] Approval evidence is retained in an appropriate and accessible
- form.
5. Legal hold and preservation
- [ ] The legal/eDiscovery scenario has an approved scope.
- [ ] The supported hold configuration has been tested with synthetic
- content.
- [ ] The team can verify the expected preservation behavior.
- [ ] The relationship between hold requirements and disposition has
- been documented.
- [ ] Physical inventory status is not treated as a substitute for an
- electronic hold.
- [ ] Hold release requires an approved procedure.
- [ ] Release is not treated as automatic authorization to destroy
- content.
- [ ] Roles and permissions are verified.
6. Security and access
- [ ] Least-privilege access has been applied and tested.
- [ ] Administrative roles and workflow connection owners are
- documented.
- [ ] Sensitive fields and documents are protected appropriately.
- [ ] The environment does not expose real client or personal data
- unnecessarily.
- [ ] External sharing and guest access have been reviewed.
- [ ] Audit, monitoring, and incident-handling requirements are
- understood.
- [ ] Ownership and continuity are addressed if a key employee leaves.
7. Operational readiness
- [ ] The solution has a named business owner and technical owner.
- [ ] Support and escalation paths are documented.
- [ ] Failed flows and incomplete requests can be identified and
- reconciled.
- [ ] Configuration changes have a review and deployment process.
- [ ] Users have training and clear instructions.
- [ ] Reporting and periodic review responsibilities are defined.
- [ ] Retention and disposition exceptions have an owner.
- [ ] Backup, recovery, continuity, and data lifecycle requirements
- have been assessed for the actual environment.
8. Migration and rollout planning
- [ ] The scope of any migration has been defined separately from the
- PoC.
- [ ] Source data quality and classification issues have been
- assessed.
- [ ] Migration mapping and validation requirements are documented.
- [ ] Rollout stages, user groups, and dependencies are known.
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable and agreed.
- [ ] Rollback, issue handling, and change communications are planned.
- [ ] The production design has been reviewed by the relevant
- stakeholders.
Turn the checklist into a decision
For each checklist item, record one of four states: Validated, Partially validated, Not validated, or Not applicable. Add an owner and next action for every unresolved item. "Validated" should mean that the relevant evidence exists and has been reviewed - not merely that a configuration screen was completed.
A proof of concept is most valuable when it reduces uncertainty and makes the next decisions visible. The production plan should identify unresolved business requirements, technical limitations, licensing dependencies, and governance approvals before the organization commits to rollout.
