Routing migrations become fragile when equivalent-looking rules carry different precedence.
Capacity relief depends on a cutover that cannot trade deterministic behavior for simpler implementation.
Who you’d be doing this for
“One bad rewrite doesn't look like downtime—it looks like we sent shoppers somewhere else.”
Nikos Fontana · Principal Frontend Architect
Operates a global commerce application with locale-specific rewrites and multiple storefronts on shared domains.
What is at stake
Replayed traffic shows 0.07% of routes resolving differently on the new manifest, mostly nested rewrites, locale prefixes and wildcards. You have to decide what proof is enough before a cutover you cannot undo.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- capacity deadline vs. route correctness
- global consistency vs. exceptional configurations
- automated evidence vs. verified proof
- native control vs. vendor insulation
- customer continuity vs. irreversible cutover
Why Vercel
At Vercel, this can matter because global edge delivery depends on routing behavior remaining dependable as underlying systems change.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 7 more at Vercel, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.