Most native Arm64 efforts do not begin with a rewrite. They begin with evidence.

Teams need to know whether the application builds, whether it runs on the target architecture, whether the workflows users care about behave correctly, where dependencies create friction, and which performance-sensitive paths need further investigation. Those findings help product and engineering leaders decide whether Windows on Arm support is a small validation effort, a focused engineering project, or a larger roadmap investment, as well as whether native Arm64 support can help them reach new users on Arm-based Windows devices. They also provide a clearer basis for evaluating the opportunity to reach users on Arm-based Windows devices.

The fastest way to reduce that uncertainty is to build and test on a Windows on Arm device, capture the results, and turn the evidence into a concrete plan. Claude can support that loop by inspecting build output, explaining architecture assumptions, identifying dependency risks, drafting investigation notes, reviewing code changes, and keeping the work organized.

For developers, that means less switching between environments. For engineering leaders, it means a cleaner path from early unknowns to scoped work. For product leaders, it means better evidence for deciding whether and when native Windows on Arm support should become part of the roadmap.