If a Digital Memorial Service Changes or Closes: Exit Evidence Map

Direct answer and scope

Start with a dated record of the notice and a focused inventory of selected content. For each selected item, record what it represents and whether it is a master, approved, display, export, documentation, or another identified version. These labels are questions for organizing the record, not a mandatory file set. Descriptive file names, organized folders, and documentation of folder structure can help distinguish what is actually held.

Treat the current hosted memorial and independently held material as different evidence states. Record whether the live destination is currently known, whether an export is documented, what that export is said to contain, and whether metadata such as the site name or creation date accompanies it. Do not treat a saved view, an unexplained file, or an unconfirmed reference to export as evidence of complete content or preserved functionality.

The scope is evidence organization, not service evaluation. No validated vendor, platform, product, account-control, export, file-format, backup, restore, privacy, succession, price, availability, rating, or turnaround information is attached. Vendor-specific values and every proposed transition result must remain unknown unless supported later by a separately reviewed primary-evidence manifest.

How to use the official evidence

The Library of Congress personal-websites guidance provides a preservation-method route for identifying important web content, exporting selected information, retaining associated metadata, and organizing exported files. Apply it by asking precise questions: Is there an independently readable export? What selected content does it contain? What descriptive information travels with it? The guidance does not establish that any memorial service supplies an export or that exported material preserves the behavior of a hosted memorial.

The Library of Congress personal-digital-records guidance supports decisions about which versions have long-term value and how files are described and organized. Record the status assigned to each version rather than inferring it from a filename or location. Keep a vendor-held copy, a commissioner-held copy, and an independent backup as separate evidence states; an unverified reference should not be counted as a copy.

Official guidance also recommends multiple copies in different locations and periodic checks that files remain readable. The National Archives describes the 3-2-1 approach as three copies on two different media with one copy off-site. It can be used as a planning reference by listing each proposed copy, medium category, and location category as unresolved until supported. The existence of several copies alone does not establish that any copy can reproduce or restore a hosted memorial.

The Library of Congress personal-digital-archiving hub addresses methods involving file formats, descriptions, scanning, storage-media durability, photographs, records, and websites. Use that federal route for preservation-method questions while documenting vendor features and file-specific decisions independently. It does not supply an endorsement of a platform, format, host, workflow, QR system, or memorial service.

Decision framework

Move through the transition in layers rather than converting a single notice or visible link into a continuity conclusion. First, preserve the notice as a separate record of what it states and identify the selected content under consideration. Next, ask whether an export or other independent copy is documented, what it contains, what metadata accompanies it, and where each copy is held. Then record the intended destination or fallback separately from any current live destination.

A QR image, its underlying destination, domain or account control, redirect control, a human-readable fallback, export evidence, independent copies, periodic tests, and continuity handoff are distinct evidence states. A positive observation about one layer does not answer the others. Unanswered fields remain unresolved, including replacement requirements, destination control, copy readability, restore capability, migration feasibility, timing, and the final transition result.

Use the comparison below as an evidence map rather than a vendor score. Each row identifies what may be recorded and what must remain open when the supplied record does not answer the question.

Limits and what to verify next

Preserve the exact scope and date shown in any notice, without treating the notice as an answer to questions it does not address. Then seek primary evidence for any stated deadline, account action, destination change, export process, included content, metadata, or handoff procedure. A notice should be used only for what it actually documents; it does not independently answer whether another service can receive, interpret, or reproduce the material.

For each independently held file set, verify that the copy exists in the recorded location and perform a periodic readability check. Record the check separately from the copy’s existence. If using the 3-2-1 approach as a planning reference, leave copy, media, location, and off-site states unresolved until each is evidenced. Do not treat synchronization, a listed location, or an inaccessible file as proof of a usable backup.

Before considering any replacement, compare only requirements established by the selected-content inventory and primary evidence supplied for the proposed destination. Necessary unanswered questions may include accepted inputs, retained metadata, destination control, fallback presentation, export terms, independent-copy options, and testing evidence. No replacement can be selected from the supplied record because no validated vendor-specific manifest is present.

The organizing method separates supplied evidence from unresolved contract, copyright, privacy, export, backup, QR, and continuity questions. It does not calculate a score, produce a legal conclusion, choose a provider, or turn an unanswered status into a favorable finding. Current requirements and any service-specific terms should be verified directly through appropriate primary materials.

Evidence behind this page

Each point below is restricted to what the cited primary source supports. Administrative listing status is not a quality endorsement.