Rule and source record
Business rules with source citations so reviewers can inspect the interpretation against the original program.
Enterprise modernization and prioritizationKAIRO
Turn possibility into priority.
Assess scoped COBOL workloads and compare behavior before choosing a modernization path.
MODERNIZE / KAIRO
Modernization evidence
Inspect the behavior hidden inside a small code change.
Legacy behavior can depend on details that a high-level specification misses, including rounding and batch processing rules. KAIRO connects source-cited rules with execution of a supported original program and scoped comparison to a counterpart. The record helps application owners decide what a modernization effort must preserve.
Keep behavior in viewExample
Source rulesComparisonCoverage
Original program
IF ACTIVE
PERFORM PROCESS
END-IFSource-cited ruleCounterpart
if (active) {
process();
}Behavior to compareDeclared comparison scope
InputsAgreed fixtures
RuntimeRecorded context
FieldsObserved outputs
Differences and coverage gaps stay visible
Assessment authority
Collect inside an agreed source boundary.
The assessment begins with a declared workload, permitted sources and evaluation criteria. Signed scope and recorded collection give reviewers a basis for understanding what material the assessment was allowed to use.
- The agreed source boundary identifies the material in scope.
- Collection and model-endpoint permissions follow the approved assessment authority.
- The signed record preserves the scope against which later evidence is reviewed.
Interactive example
Inspect a behavior difference.
Compare a synthetic rounding case within a declared source boundary and retain what the selected fields establish.
Synthetic inputsComputed in this browser
KAIROInteractive workspace
Choose a starting pointThen change any input to explore the difference.
01 / Set the context
Example COBOL assessment · batch rounding
The example workload is one batch calculation and its cited rounding rule.
The authored decimal input is 12.345; the selected output has two decimal places.
A normal case and rounding boundary cases have different evidential reach.
Authored examples for exploring the workflow. Your choices update only this demonstration.
02 / Inspect the basisBehavior comparison record
2 evidence items to resolve
1 of 3 example checks met. Follow the evidence questions before carrying the example forward.
1 / 3 checks met
- Selected amount difference
- −$0.01
- Differing cases
- 1 / 1
12.34 counterpart − 12.35 original · authored input 12.345
Selected amount field within the example input scope
Review checks1 / 3 met
Assessment authorityMet
The example authority names the source program, runtime, permitted input and amount field.Counterpart roundingReview
Original example output: 12.35. Counterpart truncation output: 12.34.Comparison coverageReview
The comparison includes the single authored input 12.345 and its amount field.
Next review step
Inspect the source-cited rounding rule and preserve or explicitly agree the one-cent difference.
Inspect the selected evidence
- Assessment authority
- The example authority names the source program, runtime, permitted input and amount field.
- Counterpart rounding
- Original example output: 12.35. Counterpart truncation output: 12.34.
- Comparison coverage
- The comparison includes the single authored input 12.345 and its amount field.
- Declared comparison inputs
- 12.345; expected original amount field is 12.35.
Illustrative review record · human decisions and subsequent actions keep their own standing.
The product
Prioritize enterprise modernization.
KAIRO is the modernization product in the LockedIn Labs family. Its current entry point is scoped COBOL batch assessment: trace business rules to their source, run the original program and compare a counterpart over an agreed test scope. Findings and coverage gaps give teams evidence for a modernization decision. Broader modernization planning, rebuilding, data migration and cutover remain in development.
Enterprise AI journeyMODERNIZE
Inside KAIRO
Establish what must survive the change.
Start a modernization decision with one supported COBOL batch workload. Connect business rules to source code, observe the original program and examine where a counterpart agrees or differs over the declared test scope.
- Application owners
- Modernization architects
- Engineering and assurance teams
How the work moves
Agree the assessment boundaryDeclared evaluation scope
Define the workload, source boundary, responsible reviewers and evaluation criteria before access. Identify the supported inputs, runtime and fields to compare.
Trace the business rulesSource-cited rule record
Inspect business rules with citations back to the original source. Give application owners a way to examine the basis for the assessment.
Run the original and compareBehavior comparison
Execute the original program on supported inputs and compare the counterpart within the agreed scope. Preserve the observed outputs and differences.
Review what remains openAssessment findings and next steps
Examine unsupported behavior, unresolved dependencies and coverage gaps beside the results. Use those findings to define what a subsequent delivery plan must establish.
What the work produces.
Comparison record
Original and counterpart behavior over declared inputs, runtime and fields, with differences retained for review.
Coverage and decision brief
Supported findings, test boundaries and unresolved questions that shape the modernization decision.
Current delivery centers on scoped COBOL assessment and comparison. Broader modernization planning, rebuilding, data migration and cutover remain in development.
In practice · illustrative scenario
Check a rounding rule before changing a batch program.
An application owner is assessing a COBOL batch calculation. A counterpart uses a different rounding choice, and the team needs to understand whether selected output fields preserve the original behavior.
- 01
Inspect the rule
Follow the calculation's citation to the original program and agree the supported inputs and fields to compare.
- 02
Observe the difference
Run the original and compare the counterpart over the declared scope. Examine the differing field alongside the inputs that produced it.
- 03
Define the next evidence
Retain the comparison and its coverage, then identify further cases or dependencies the modernization decision needs to address.
The useful outcome
The illustrative outcome is a specific behavior question with source and comparison evidence, giving the team a clear requirement to preserve or deliberately change.
A closer look
Know what you can do with KAIRO.
What workload should we bring to a first assessment?
One supported COBOL batch workload with an agreed source boundary, responsible reviewers and evaluation criteria. Establish its inputs, runtime, dependencies and comparison fields before collection so the assessment has a concrete basis.
What does a matching comparison establish?
Agreement for the declared inputs, runtime and fields in that comparison. The record keeps the coverage and unresolved dependencies visible, allowing the team to decide which additional cases are needed for its modernization decision.
What can we use after the assessment?
The source-cited rules, original and counterpart observations, differences and coverage findings. They inform a modernization brief and acceptance criteria. Broader rebuilding, data migration and cutover remain a separately scoped development effort.
