filed, in their words
Ten folders, ten professionals, in their own words.
What people say afterwards is almost always about one pocket: the consent that finally matched, the site letter that finally moved, the category call made plainly before the board made it. These are the voices behind the 4.9 / 5 on the practice's own record — first name, credential, and the stage each was at when the folder came to us.
“My first filing came back for a consent version that did not match the application. They rebuilt the consent pocket and the recruitment email to the same version and re-filed it. The second pass was the real review, and nothing came back.”
“The site letter was the thing I could not get moving. They drafted it for the clinic's director, naming exactly which records the project touched, and it came back signed without a single question. That was the pocket holding the whole file.”
“I thought the determination was a formality. They read my design and told me plainly it was research, not QI, before the board did. That one honest call saved the whole file from a restart.”
“Every pocket, every reply, handled. When the board asked about the data-security answers, the response went back the way the file had gone in: complete. One more pass and it was approved.”
“My interview guide said ‘questions will explore staff experiences.’ Olivia wrote back that this was a promise to write an instrument later, not an instrument. We wrote the eight prompts exactly as I would say them aloud, and the board approved the questions I actually asked.”
“Two of the three people on my application had CITI certificates that had lapsed, and none of us had noticed. It was the first thing the free review flagged. Renewed, certificates in the folder, filed — and that pocket never came up again.”
“I had written ‘data will be stored securely’ in four different places. They replaced it with the drive, the three names, the de-identification step and a calendar date. The board's only comment on that section was that it was clear.”
“What I valued was being told where I did not need them. The free review said my folder was ready except for one element missing from the consent. I fixed that line and filed it myself. They could have sold me more and did not.”
“The board came back with a revision request that ran to a page and a half. Helen answered it point by point, in the board's own words, and re-filed every document at the same version. I read the reply before it went and did not change a thing. Approved on the next pass.”
“My project changed after approval — a second unit joined. I would have just started. Instead they drafted the amendment, it went through, and the data from the second unit is usable. That is the kind of thing you do not know you need until it is too late.”
average 4.9 / 5 across the professionals we've served, preparing Herzing files since 2017 — the practice's own record
How these were gathered, and what they are not
Each note was sent to us after a file closed, and each person agreed to its use with a first name, an initial and the stage they were at. A few were shortened; none were reworded. The stars are the practice's own visual record and nothing more — they are not a published rating schema, and they should not be read as a promise about any other folder.
The pockets they name are the ones that come up most — consent and recruitment, the site letter, the category claim, CITI, data security — and every one of them is read in full on the homepage folder. If you want to know which of them is open in your own file, the free application review starts there.
the other tabs in this file