What Verdica's 656 score means for Gregory Capin
Gregory Capin's composite score of 656 out of 850 places him in the elevated-risk band (580–669), which sits one tier above high risk but notably below the acceptable threshold of 670. This means the provider shows some meaningful compliance strengths—particularly in PCAOB audit outcomes—but carries enough credential or licensing concerns to warrant closer scrutiny before engagement.
For a business owner or consumer evaluating this provider, a 656 score suggests caution rather than automatic rejection. The provider is not in the highest-risk category, but the score reflects gaps significant enough that due diligence beyond this summary is warranted. You should verify current licensing status independently, review the nature of any state board findings, and ask direct questions about audit outcomes before committing to a service relationship.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials (340 / 1000): This is the weakest component of Gregory Capin's profile. A score of 340 indicates substantial concerns in this dimension—likely unresolved licensing gaps, credential lapses, or state registration issues. In the accounting profession, this sub-score typically reflects problems such as expired or restricted licenses, missing required certifications (CPA, CFA, or specialized designations), or unresolved compliance actions at the state board level. A low score here is a red flag because it directly affects legal authority to practice.
PCAOB Record (810 / 1000): This is a strong performer. The PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) score of 810 suggests that audit inspections and quality reviews have largely favored this provider. A score in this range typically means acceptable audit quality, reasonable controls, and compliance with PCAOB standards—though not flawless. This score partially offsets the credential concerns but does not eliminate them.
Disciplinary (850 / 1000): This is the highest sub-score, reflecting a clean or near-clean disciplinary record. A perfect or near-perfect score here means no major regulatory sanctions, complaints findings, or enforcement actions from state boards or federal regulators. This is a positive signal but must be weighed against the credential deficiencies.
What regulators in GA track for accounting providers
Georgia's state board of accountancy and the PCAOB together create the compliance landscape that shapes scores like Gregory Capin's.
State board registration monitors active CPA licensing, renewal status, continuing education compliance, and any disciplinary history (complaints, consent orders, restrictions). A low License & Credentials score often stems from lapses in one or more of these areas.
PCAOB audit findings evaluate whether the firm meets auditing standards, maintains adequate quality controls, and properly supports its audit conclusions. PCAOB inspections produce ratings based on whether audits were performed in accordance with applicable standards. Quality issues, insufficient documentation, or control failures here drive down the PCAOB sub-score.
Disciplinary data aggregates enforcement actions: settlements, suspensions, fines, or restitution orders. A provider with a high disciplinary score has avoided these outcomes.
These three domains together give regulators and consumers a complete picture of compliance. A provider strong in audit quality but weak in credentials—as Gregory Capin appears to be—suggests the provider may do sound work but faces administrative or licensing barriers that complicate engagement.
Bottom line
Gregory Capin's 656 score places him in an elevated-risk category due to credential and licensing concerns that outweigh otherwise acceptable audit quality. Before engaging this provider, independently verify current Georgia board licensure status, request clarification on the nature of credential gaps, and confirm that any licensing issues do not affect the services you need. If the licensing issues are minor or resolved, the strong PCAOB and disciplinary records may support a controlled engagement; if they are material, consider alternative providers.