What Verdica's 656 score means for Deanna Plunkett
Deanna Plunkett's composite score of 656 falls into Verdica's "elevated risk" band (580–669). This score reflects a mixed compliance profile: strong regulatory standing in some areas, but meaningful gaps in others that warrant attention from potential clients.
A score in this range suggests the provider meets baseline legal requirements to operate but carries enough compliance variance to justify due diligence before engagement. For a business owner or individual considering Plunkett's services, the 656 score is neither a clean bill of health nor a red flag—it's a signal to ask targeted questions before committing. The lack of indexed customer reviews means you won't find third-party feedback on service quality or responsiveness, so your evaluation will depend heavily on direct conversation and reference checks outside this report.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials (340 / 850): This is the weakest component of Plunkett's profile. A score of 340 indicates significant gaps or issues in licensing status or professional credential standing in Colorado. In the accounting industry, this sub-score typically reflects problems like lapses in required certifications, incomplete registration with state boards, or unresolved credential discrepancies. This is the dimension most likely to affect legal authority to practice and should be your first point of clarification.
PCAOB Record (810 / 850): This near-excellent score shows strong performance under Public Company Accounting Oversight Board audit findings. A score this high indicates either few or minor findings in PCAOB inspections, or no material deficiencies in audit quality and process controls. For providers subject to PCAOB oversight, this suggests competent audit execution and compliance with federal auditing standards.
Disciplinary (850 / 850): A perfect score here means no indexed disciplinary actions, complaints, or sanctions in the underlying state board database. This is the cleanest part of Plunkett's record and indicates no public record of enforcement actions, license suspensions, or professional misconduct findings.
What regulators in CO track for accounting providers
Colorado's state board registration and the PCAOB use different lenses to oversee accounting providers:
State Board Registration evaluates licensing status, credential currency, and disciplinary history. The board tracks whether a provider holds required certifications (such as CPA licensing), whether those licenses are in good standing, and whether any complaints, investigations, or sanctions have been initiated. A low License & Credentials score may reflect expired licenses, pending applications, incomplete continuing education disclosures, or active disciplinary cases.
PCAOB Audit Findings focus on the quality of audit work itself—whether the provider follows auditing standards, maintains adequate documentation, and applies proper professional skepticism. Inspections look for deficiencies in engagement execution, internal controls, and compliance with GAAP or GAAS. The PCAOB publishes findings on firms it inspects; a high score here indicates either no published findings or only minor, non-systemic issues.
Disciplinary records capture formal enforcement actions: license revocations, suspensions, probation, restitution orders, or ethics violations. Colorado's board maintains this public record. A perfect score means the provider has avoided formal sanction—though it doesn't guarantee complaint history or civil litigation.
Together, these three lenses form a compliance portrait. A provider can have clean discipline and strong audit quality but still face licensing barriers, or vice versa.
Bottom line
Plunkett's 656 score suggests acceptable regulatory standing on audit quality and discipline, but the weak License & Credentials sub-score requires immediate verification before engagement. Before moving forward, confirm current license status directly with Colorado's state board, clarify the nature of any credential gaps, and ask for references from recent clients—especially those in regulated industries. A conversation addressing the licensing discrepancy will determine whether the elevated risk is manageable or disqualifying.