BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF GENEALOGISTSPOST OFFICE BOX 14291 WASHINGTON, DC 20044

A P P L I C A N T C a r i A - T a p l i n J U D G E 1

CGSM PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

REPORT PAGE 1

RECOMMENDATION Disapprove

BC6 EXPECTS APPLICATIONS TO MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

BCG-SUPPLIED DOCUMENT APPLICABLE STANDARDSDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-8,11 Partially Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7,14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-6, 14 Partially Meets StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Does Not Meet StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25,28 Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Partially Meets Standards

APPLICANT-SUPPLIED DOCUMENTDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-8,11 Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7,14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-8,14 Does Not Meet StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Meets StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25,28 Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Partially Meets Standards

CLIENT REPORTCR1. RESPONSIVENESS TO CLIENT'S SPECIFICATIONS 38 and, if applicable, 54 Partially Meets StandardsCR2. EXTENT AND EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH 5,19, 37 Does Not Meet StandardsCR3. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4, 8, 36, 49, 53 Does Not Meet StandardsCR4. EFFICIENCY OF REPORT 37,41-43 Does Not Meet StandardsCR5. COMPREHENSIVENESS OF REPORTED FINDINGS 38-39 Does Not Meet StandardsCR6. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Meets StandardsCR7. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33, 41-42 Does Not Meet StandardsCR8. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20, 24-25, 27-32, 41-42 Does Not Meet StandardsCR9. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 Does Not Meet StandardsCR10. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26,43 Partially Meets StandardsCR11. CLARITY OF REPORT 35,40 Partially Meets StandardsCR12. PHOTOCOPIES, SCANS AND IMAGES 9-10, 38 Meets Standards

CASE STUDYCS1. EXTENT OF RESEARCH 19 Does Not Meet StandardsCS2. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4, 8, 36,49, 53 Meets StandardsCS3. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Partially Meets StandardsCS4. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33 Partially Meets StandardsCS5. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20, 24-25, 27-32, 47 Partially Meets StandardsCS6. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 Meets StandardsCS7. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26.50 Does Not Meet StandardsCS8. CLARITY OF WRITING 35,44-46,48, 70 Partially Meets Standards

BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF GENEALOGISTS

POST OFFICE BOX 14291 WASHINGTON, DC 20044

A P P L I C A N T C a r i A T a p l i n J U D G E 2

CGSM PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

REPORT PAGE 1

RECOMMENDATION Approve

BCG EXPECTS APPLICATIONS TO MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

BCG-SUPPLIED DOCUMENT APPLICABLE STANDARDSDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-8,11 Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7,14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-8,14 Partially Meets StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Partially Meets StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Partially Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25,28 Partially Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Partially Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Partially Meets Standards

APPLICANT-SUPPLIED DOCUMENTDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-6.11 Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7,14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-8,14 Partially Meets StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Meets StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25,28 Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Partially Meets Standards

CLIENT REPORTCR1. RESPONSIVENESS TO CLIENTS SPECIFICATIONS 38 and, if applicable, 54 Partially Meets StandardsCR2. EXTENT AND EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH 5,19, 37 Partially Meets StandardsCR3. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4, 8, 36, 49, 53 Meets StandardsCR4. EFFICIENCY OF REPORT 37, 41-43 Partially Meets StandardsCR5. COMPREHENSIVENESS OF REPORTED FINDINGS 38-39 Partially Meets StandardsCR6. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Partially Meets StandardsCR7. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33. 41-42 Partially Meets StandardsCR8. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20. 24-25, 27-32, 41^*2 UndeterminedCR9. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 UndeterminedCR10. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26,43 UndeterminedCR11. CLARITY OF REPORT 35,40 Meets StandardsCR12. PHOTOCOPIES, SCANS AND IMAGES 9-10, 38 Meets Standards

CASE STUDYCS1. EXTENT OF RESEARCH 19 Partially Meets StandardsCS2. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4.8. 36,49. 53 Meets StandardsCS3. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Meets StandardsCS4. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33 Partially Meets StandardsCS5. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20. 24-25. 27-32, 47 Meets StandardsCS6. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 Meets StandardsCS7. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26,50 Partially Meets StandardsCS8. CLARITY OF WRITING 35, 44-^6, 48, 70 Meets Standards

BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF GENEALOGISTS®POST OFFICE BOX 14291 WASHINGTON, DC 20044

A P P L I C A N T C a r i A T a p l i n J U D G E 3

CGSM PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

REPORT PAGE 1

RECOMMENDATION Approve

BCG EXPECTS APPLICATIONS TO MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

BCG-SUPPLIED DOCUMENT APPLICABLE STANDARDSDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-8,11 Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7,14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-8,14 Meets StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Meets StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25.28 Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Meets Standards

APPLICANT-SUPPLIED DOCUMENTDW1. ACCURACY OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-7,11 Meets StandardsDW2. COMPLETENESS OF TRANSCRIPTION 6-8.11 Meets StandardsDW3. ACCURACY OF ABSTRACT 6-7.14 Meets StandardsDW4. COMPLETENESS OF ABSTRACT 6-8.14 Meets StandardsDW5. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23 Meets StandardsDW6. ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT 24 Meets StandardsDW7. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANCE 25.28 Meets StandardsDW8. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 29-30 Meets StandardsDW9. EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PLAN 5 Meets Standards

CLIENT REPORTCR1. RESPONSIVENESS TO CLIENTS SPECIFICATIONS 38 and, if applicable, 54 Meets StandardsCR2. EXTENT AND EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH 5,19, 37 Meets StandardsCR3. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4, 8, 36, 49. 53 Meets StandardsCR4. EFFICIENCY OF REPORT 37, 41-43 Partially Meets StandardsCR5. COMPREHENSIVENESS OF REPORTED FINDINGS 38-39 Meets StandardsCR6. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Meets StandardsCR7. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33, 41-42 Meets StandardsCR8. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20, 24-25, 27-32, 41^*2 Meets StandardsCR9. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 Not ApplicableCR10. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26,43 Partially Meets StandardsCR11. CLARITY OF REPORT 35,40 Partially Meets StandardsCR12. PHOTOCOPIES. SCANS AND IMAGES 9-10. 38 Meets Standards

CASE STUDYCS1. EXTENT OF RESEARCH 19 Meets StandardsCS2. ADEQUACY OF SOURCE CITATIONS 4, 8, 36, 49, 53 Meets StandardsCS3. QUALITY OF SOURCES AND INFORMATION 21-22 Meets StandardsCS4. ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY 20-23, 33 Meets StandardsCS5. CORRELATION AND ASSEMBLY OF EVIDENCE 20,24-25, 27-32, 47 Partially Meets StandardsCS6. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE 34 Meets StandardsCS7. SOUNDNESS OF CONCLUSIONS 26,50 Meets StandardsCS8. CLARITY OF WRITING 35.44-46,48, 70 Partially Meets Standards

Board for Certification of Genealogists®Post Office Box 14291 • Washington, DC 20044

Arbitration Review Report

App l i can t : Car i A . Tap l in Recommendat ion : Suffic ien t fo r Cer t i fica t ionDate Received: 24 January 2015 Date Mailed: 19 February 2015

Note to Applicant: Because your portfolio received mixed recommendations from three judges, it was sentto a fourth judge (arbiter) for further review and recommendation. Judge 4 is the only judge who also seesthe other judges' evaluation reports.

All three judges noted that the application has many strengths—including exemplary citations, exceptionalwriting skills, and professional quality presentation, and good evidence analysis on some portfolio elements.

Judge 1 recommended disapproval, flagging many genealogical-skill areas in which the submitted workproducts marginally met standards or fell short of them. Judges 2 and 3 noted some of the same problems,but recommended approval. The differences between their recommendations center upon one issue: whetherthe problem areas are easily remediable by the applicant.

The most serious deficiencies lie in the client report. As a nine-hour open-ended project in which the clientwanted to "follow the surname," find "special stories about them or occupations," track the immigrant ofthat name to Europe, and find cousins there, the project had an unrealistic goal and was a poor choice for aportfolio. The result was simply a record search in online sources that provided the applicant no opportunityto demonstrate her ability to do anything other than gather records and transcribe censuses. It revealsnothing about her ability to analyze a research problem, analyze documents, correlate evidence, evaluateresults, and plan new work strategies.

The weaknesses of the client report are partially offset by the case study (which demonstrates someconfusion over direct and indirect evidence) and the kinship-determination project (which is well handled,although the proof summaries involve no problems or conflicts to be resolved).

In determining whether or not these deficiencies are easily remediated, the mitigating factor is theapplicant's commitment to professional education and continuous growth. On this basis, approval isrecommended with the reminder that, at renewal, judges will expect to see none of the problem areas thatare flagged in these 2015 critiques.