A redirect loop prevents access to a page. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
Conflicting rules send requests back to an earlier URL.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Inspect host, protocol, slash, and application rules together.
A redirect plan should preserve the visitor's intended task when a URL moves or a useful equivalent replaces it.
Check that the repair worked
Confirm that the affected URL reaches a stable final response.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: only desktop URLs were tested after a migration. Test representative devices and URL patterns, including query parameters.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track broken destinations, redirect chains, and successful access to important migrated content.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.
Official reference for the platform or standard discussed: Google Search Central: site moves.