What Verdica's 656 score means for Lisa Swallow
Lisa Swallow's composite score of 656 places her in the elevated risk band (580–669). This means her profile shows mixed signals: some dimensions meet baseline standards, while others warrant closer attention before engagement.
A score of 656 is above the high-risk threshold but well below the "acceptable" range (670+). For a business owner or organization considering her services, this suggests proceeding with caution and performing additional due diligence beyond Verdica's data. The score reflects publicly available regulatory records—primarily PCAOB audit findings and Colorado state board registration—but does not capture customer experience or firm-specific operational details. No independent customer reviews are currently indexed, so you cannot yet cross-reference this profile against peer feedback.
The elevated designation does not mean Lisa Swallow is unqualified or unsafe to work with. Rather, it signals that her regulatory standing contains enough variance across measured dimensions that you should clarify specific capabilities, verify licensing status independently, and understand any disciplinary history before committing to an engagement.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials: 340
This sub-score is notably low and represents a significant drag on the composite. A score of 340 in this dimension typically reflects gaps, inconsistencies, or concerns in formal qualifications, active licensing status, or credential verification as recorded by the Colorado state board. In accounting, this might include lapses in CPA or other professional certifications, incomplete registration records, or unresolved background checks. A score this low is a red flag and should prompt direct verification with the Colorado Board of Accountancy.
PCAOB Record: 810
This score is strong and sits in the "excellent" band. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) maintains records of audit quality inspections and compliance findings for firms that audit public companies. A score of 810 suggests that PCAOB audit findings, where they exist, do not show systemic quality failures or serious violations. This is a positive signal, though it applies only if Lisa Swallow's firm conducts public audits; if her practice is primarily private or tax-focused, this dimension may have less relevance.
Disciplinary: 850
This perfect score indicates no material disciplinary actions, sanctions, or complaints recorded in available regulatory databases. This is the strongest possible reading in this dimension and reflects a clean disciplinary slate.
What regulators in CO track for accounting providers
Colorado's state board and the PCAOB maintain separate but complementary oversight:
State Board Registration focuses on individual licensing, continuing education compliance, and adherence to practice standards. The board verifies that CPAs and other accounting professionals hold current, unrestricted licenses and have satisfied renewal and ethics training requirements. Gaps here—such as an expired license, incomplete CE hours, or a failure to renew—depress the credentials score.
PCAOB Audit Findings apply to firms that audit public companies or brokers. The PCAOB conducts annual or triennial inspections, reviewing audit workpapers, quality controls, and compliance with auditing standards. Common findings include inadequate audit procedures, insufficient documentation, or deficiencies in internal quality review. Serious or repeat findings lower this sub-score; a clean record raises it.
Both regulators track ethical violations, investigations by state attorneys general, and complaints from clients or the public. These typically flow into the disciplinary score.
Bottom line
Lisa Swallow's elevated risk score warrants a pause before engagement. The strong PCAOB and disciplinary scores are positive, but the low credentials score suggests licensing or qualification issues that require immediate clarification directly with her and the Colorado Board of Accountancy. Request current proof of licensure, verify any disciplinary findings independently, and ask for references before proceeding.