Key strengths of the RGC method include the following:

• The approach has the potential for collecting extensive, quality data relatively quickly. 

• It empowers language community representatives to be well-informed of language patterns and constructions so they can make choices for at least 80% of their writing system. 

• The beginning dictionary, consonant and vowel book, and grammar book produced remind language developers how they chose to write, not just in spelling and writing rules, but through numerous data examples to model the writing system. 

• The process of checking drafted reading materials can effectively train language developers to write their language consistently in about two months, rather than in several years, as might otherwise be needed. 

• New language developers, instead of having to experience a workshop themselves, can often learn the skill of writing their language through the reference materials and checking process. 

While the RGC approach has many strengths, there are significant weaknesses, including the following:

• The workshop sessions are intense, tiring, and monotonous, with many direct and repeated questions asked of participants. 

• Because there are no workshop materials and only a general outline of topics to follow, the workshop management is only as good as the person leading it. Experience and being comfortable with ambiguity go a long way.

• Although all writing decisions are made by the language communities, the workshop agenda and activities are set by the facilitator. 

• While only 4-6 weeks are needed for the workshops, 4-6 months are needed to complete the reference tools afterwards. If time is not set aside for this extensive work, it will not happen. 

• If the reference tools are produced by outsiders, community representatives are only minimally involved in the description of the language. Even so, community members do still become owners of their language development process, not just in making informed writing decisions for their language, but also in using them to produce readable materials that benefit their communities.

Although Stirtz has not found ways to minimize these weaknesses while keeping these strengths, he notes others using this method may be more successful.