210 minutes · 140 marks. Questions require evidence, reasoning and application; answers cannot be identified by guessing a short option.
Some tasks use shared beta scenarios and still need subject-specific authoring and academic review.
Task 1: Applied mathematics
10 marks
A simulated rectangular irrigation zone measures 24 m by 15 m. A planning exercise estimates a net water depth of 8 mm per day and a distribution efficiency of 80%. This is a calculation exercise, not permission to abstract water or operate equipment.
Evidence
- Area = length × width; 1 mm = 0.001 m.
- Net daily volume = area × net depth; gross volume = net volume ÷ efficiency as a decimal.
- The same assumptions are used for a three-day comparison; no rainfall, soil storage, leakage or local water restrictions are supplied.
Calculate area, net daily volume, gross daily volume and three-day gross volume. Show each unit conversion and explain why dividing by 0.80, rather than multiplying, is required.
Challenge: Recalculate the gross daily volume at 75% efficiency, compare it with the 80% estimate, and name two missing observations or permissions needed before a real irrigation decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- 2 marks: area = 360 m² and depth = 0.008 m
- 2 marks: net daily volume = 2.88 m³
- 2 marks: gross daily volume = 3.60 m³ and reason for division by efficiency
- 1 mark: three-day gross volume = 10.8 m³
- 3 marks: 75% result = 3.84 m³/day, difference = 0.24 m³/day, and two relevant real-world limitations
- Area = 24 × 15 = 360 m²; 8 mm = 0.008 m.
- Net daily volume = 360 m² × 0.008 m = 2.88 m³.
- At 80% delivery efficiency, gross × 0.80 = net, so gross = 2.88/0.80 = 3.60 m³ per day.
- Three-day gross volume = 3 × 3.60 = 10.8 m³ under unchanged conditions.
- At 75% efficiency, gross = 2.88/0.75 = 3.84 m³ per day, 0.24 m³ per day more. Soil moisture, rainfall, actual distribution loss, water rights and competent approval may change or block a real plan.
Task 2: Applied physics
10 marks
A training workshop is comparing a low-voltage lifting system with a revised motor. The decision must use measured electrical input and useful lifting output, but the current measurement has uncertainty and neither calculation authorises an unsupervised load test.
Evidence
- The system operates at 12.0 V for 30.0 s and lifts a 20.0 kg load vertically through 2.20 m. Use g = 9.81 N kg⁻¹.
- The measured current is 2.60 A with an uncertainty of ±0.10 A. Treat voltage, time, mass and height as fixed for this assessment.
- A comparable system has a verified efficiency of 60.0%, but the workshop note does not state whether its load path, duty cycle and measurement method match this trial.
Calculate the electrical input energy, useful gravitational energy and central efficiency. Then calculate the efficiency range caused by the stated current uncertainty. Decide whether the evidence is sufficient to claim that this system outperforms the comparison, showing units, reasoning and an appropriately conditional conclusion.
Challenge: Identify two measurements, controls or competent approvals needed before a supervised load test, and explain how each could change the technical recommendation.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct electrical power and input-energy calculation using V, I and t
- Correct useful-energy calculation using mgh with coherent SI units
- Correct central efficiency and uncertainty range without false precision
- Comparison recognises overlapping evidence and non-equivalent test conditions
- Load, electrical and measurement safety limitations are integrated into the conclusion
- Central input energy: 12.0 × 2.60 × 30.0 = 936 J; useful energy: 20.0 × 9.81 × 2.20 = 432 J to three significant figures.
- Central efficiency is 432/936 × 100 = approximately 46.1%.
- At 2.50 A and 2.70 A, input energy is 900 J and 972 J, giving an efficiency range of approximately 44.4% to 48.0%.
- The calculated range is below 60.0%, but a strong conclusion remains conditional because duty cycle, load path and measurement method may not be comparable.
- A competent plan verifies instrument calibration, voltage under load, mechanical guarding, rated load, attachment integrity, isolation and emergency-stop arrangements before supervised testing.
Task 3: Applied chemistry
10 marks
A small water-treatment unit must estimate the calcium hydroxide required for an acidic stream. The calculation will inform a supervised trial, but the concentration and reagent purity are uncertain.
Evidence
- A laboratory record reports 12.0 dm³ of hydrochloric acid at 0.180 mol dm⁻³, with a stated concentration uncertainty of ±5%.
- The available calcium hydroxide is labelled 82.0% purity. Use Ca(OH)₂ + 2HCl → CaCl₂ + 2H₂O and M[Ca(OH)₂] = 74.1 g mol⁻¹.
- The operating note requires staged addition, continuous mixing, temperature observation and pH verification; the label alone does not confirm the identity of every impurity.
Calculate a central estimate for the supplied mass of calcium hydroxide, show the balanced-ratio reasoning and units, then calculate the lower and upper estimates caused by the acid-concentration uncertainty. Explain why the numerical range is not by itself a safe dosing instruction.
Challenge: Identify two additional measurements or approvals required before a supervised trial, and explain how each could change the recommendation.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct moles of acid from concentration and volume
- Correct 2:1 acid-to-base stoichiometric ratio
- Correct molar-mass and 82.0% purity adjustment with units
- Defensible ±5% sensitivity range without false precision
- Chemical safety, monitoring and impurity limitations integrated into the conclusion
- Central acid amount: 0.180 × 12.0 = 2.16 mol HCl; required Ca(OH)₂ amount: 2.16/2 = 1.08 mol.
- Pure Ca(OH)₂ mass: 1.08 × 74.1 = 80.0 g to three significant figures; supplied mass at 82.0% purity: 80.0/0.820 = 97.6 g.
- With only the stated concentration uncertainty propagated, the supplied-mass range is approximately 92.7 g to 102 g.
- The label purity may conceal reactive or hazardous impurities, and neutralisation can release heat; staged addition and measured endpoint control are necessary.
- A strong recommendation requests composition verification, calibrated pH measurement, approved risk controls and competent supervision before any trial.
Task 4: Technical drawing and CAD
10 marks
A workshop must review a revised support-bracket drawing before it is released for a supervised prototype. The drawing contains a stated scale and fit, but a design change has not yet been reconciled across every view.
Evidence
- The bracket is 800 mm long, 500 mm high and 300 mm deep at scale 1:25. A change notice increases the actual length to 840 mm, while one exported view still shows the old outline.
- A shaft is 30.00 ± 0.04 mm and its mating hole is 30.18 ± 0.06 mm. The drawing uses millimetres and locates the hole from a stated base datum.
- The native CAD sketch reports one unconstrained line, revision B is shown in the title block, and the change notice requires revision C plus independent approval before prototype manufacture.
Calculate the original drawing extents and the revised drawing length, then calculate shaft limits, hole limits, minimum clearance and maximum clearance. Identify the conflicting and uncontrolled evidence and decide whether the pack is ready for release, using explicit drawing-control reasoning rather than visual appearance.
Challenge: Specify the view, CAD-constraint, revision and competent-approval checks that would be required before a supervised prototype could be authorised, and explain how each check could change the release decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct 1:25 scale calculations for original and revised dimensions
- Correct shaft and hole limits with minimum and maximum clearance
- Projection and view inconsistency is identified as a controlled-document defect
- Unconstrained geometry and revision mismatch are treated as release blockers
- Conclusion separates drawing review from competent manufacturing and safety approval
- Original drawing extents are 32 mm × 20 mm × 12 mm; the revised 840 mm length is 33.6 mm at 1:25.
- Shaft limits are 29.96–30.04 mm and hole limits are 30.12–30.24 mm.
- Minimum clearance is 30.12 − 30.04 = 0.08 mm; maximum clearance is 30.24 − 29.96 = 0.28 mm.
- The stale outline, unconstrained line and revision-B title block make the pack internally inconsistent even though the calculated fit is a clearance fit.
- Release remains blocked until all views regenerate from controlled geometry, revision C records the change, an independent checker confirms the pack and competent personnel approve material, load, process and safeguarding requirements.
Task 5: Electrical and electronic systems
10 marks
A training workshop must review a proposed 24 V DC sensor-and-actuator circuit. The calculations appear plausible, but the cable loss, protective-device choice and document revisions must be reconciled before any supervised prototype is considered.
Evidence
- A 24.0 V source supplies 12 Ω and 8 Ω loads in parallel through a cable with 0.20 Ω total round-trip resistance. Treat the resistances as fixed for the central calculation.
- The proposed design specifies a 4 A fuse. The cable record gives an 8 A current-carrying capacity under its stated installation conditions, but no inrush, prospective-fault-current or disconnection-time evidence is supplied.
- The schematic is revision C, the firmware test log refers to revision B, and one fault-finding note proposes measuring resistance while the circuit is energised.
Calculate the parallel load resistance, total resistance, source current, cable voltage drop, load voltage, both branch currents, cable loss, load power and source power. Reconcile the current and power balances, then decide whether the pack is ready for supervised prototype release using the protection, measurement and revision evidence.
Challenge: Specify the isolation, instrument, protection, firmware-revision and competent-approval checks required before supervised energisation, and explain how each result could change the release decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct parallel and total resistance calculations
- Correct source current, voltage drop and branch currents with a Kirchhoff check
- Correct cable-loss, load-power and source-power balance
- Fuse, live-resistance measurement and revision mismatch are treated as release blockers
- Conclusion separates desk-based review from competent electrical approval and supervised testing
- Parallel load resistance is 4.80 Ω; including the 0.20 Ω cable gives 5.00 Ω total.
- Source current is 4.80 A, cable drop is 0.96 V and load voltage is 23.04 V.
- Branch currents are 1.92 A and 2.88 A, which sum to the 4.80 A source current.
- Cable loss is about 4.61 W, load power is about 110.6 W and source power is 115.2 W, closing the balance within rounding.
- The 4 A fuse is below normal calculated current, but a replacement cannot be selected without inrush, fault, disconnection and cable-protection evidence. Energised resistance measurement is prohibited, and revision C must be reconciled with firmware and test records before independent checking and competent approval.
Task 6: Mechanical systems and maintenance
10 marks
A training workshop must review a guarded motor-and-belt drive after an undocumented pulley change. The ideal speed calculation, measured output, torque limit and maintenance evidence must be reconciled before any supervised return to service is considered.
Evidence
- A 1.50 kW motor runs at 1440 r/min through a 120 mm driver pulley and a 300 mm driven pulley. Measured drive efficiency is 88.0% and measured output speed is 552 r/min.
- The complete guarded assembly has a competent-reviewed continuous output-torque limit of 20.0 N m. A maintenance note records bearing temperature rising from a 48 °C baseline to 67 °C under a stated comparable load.
- The pulley change is absent from revision B, the lubrication entry gives quantity but no lubricant identity, and an inspection proposal requires guard removal without documenting isolation or stored-energy verification.
Calculate ideal output speed, useful output power, angular speed at the ideal output, ideal-basis output torque and percentage slip from the measured speed. Compare the torque and temperature evidence with the stated limits, identify the uncontrolled maintenance evidence and decide whether the system is ready for supervised return to service.
Challenge: Specify the isolation, stored-energy, guarding, alignment, lubrication, condition-monitoring, revision and competent-approval checks required before supervised operation, and explain how each result could change the release decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct speed-ratio, useful-power and angular-speed calculations with coherent units
- Correct output-torque and slip calculations without hiding assumptions or false precision
- Torque exceedance and temperature trend are interpreted as evidence requiring investigation rather than a guessed diagnosis
- Undocumented pulley, unidentified lubricant and unisolated guard removal are treated as release blockers
- Conclusion separates desk-based analysis from competent mechanical approval, isolation and supervised testing
- Ideal output speed is 1440 × 120/300 = 576 r/min; useful output power is 1.50 × 0.880 = 1.32 kW.
- Ideal-output angular speed is 2π × 576/60 = approximately 60.3 rad s⁻¹, giving torque of 1320/60.3 = approximately 21.9 N m.
- Slip relative to ideal speed is (576 − 552)/576 × 100 = approximately 4.17%.
- The calculated 21.9 N m exceeds the stated 20.0 N m continuous assembly limit, while the rise from 48 °C to 67 °C is a 19 °C change requiring controlled investigation; neither value alone proves one specific root cause.
- Release remains blocked until the pulley and revision are reconciled, lubricant is identified and verified, isolation and stored energy are controlled, guards and alignment are checked, condition evidence is repeated under comparable conditions, and competent personnel approve the maintenance plan and supervised test.
Task 7: Construction and civil technology
10 marks
A training project must review a proposed ground slab and drainage route before any supervised site activity. The quantities and gradient can be calculated, but the drawing revisions, ground evidence, concrete controls and outlet approval are incomplete.
Evidence
- A slab is 8.00 m × 5.00 m × 0.125 m. Two full-depth openings are each 0.60 m × 0.40 m, and the procurement plan applies a separately stated 7.0% allowance to the net concrete volume.
- A 12.0 m drainage run falls from level 102.440 m to 102.200 m. The drawing is revision C, but the opening schedule remains revision B and the proposed outlet has no recorded consent.
- No bearing-ground or reinforcement approval is provided. The concrete record has no approved specification or curing plan, and a method note proposes entering an unsupported excavation to check a level.
Calculate gross slab volume, opening volume, net concrete volume, procurement volume including the stated allowance, drainage fall and gradient as a decimal, percentage and 1-in-n ratio. Reconcile the technical and document evidence, identify every release blocker and decide whether the pack is ready for supervised site work.
Challenge: Specify the ground, services, setting-out, structural, concrete, drainage, temporary-works, revision, inspection and competent-approval evidence required before activity could proceed, and explain how each result could change the decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct gross, deduction, net and allowance quantity calculations with coherent units and justified precision
- Correct drainage fall and equivalent decimal, percentage and 1-in-n gradient
- Revision conflict, outlet consent, ground, reinforcement, concrete and curing gaps are identified as hold points
- Unsupported-excavation entry is rejected and referred to competent temporary-works and safety control
- Conclusion separates desk-based learning evidence from structural design, statutory approval and authority to build
- Gross slab volume is 8.00 × 5.00 × 0.125 = 5.00 m³.
- The two openings remove 2 × 0.60 × 0.40 × 0.125 = 0.060 m³, leaving a net volume of 4.94 m³.
- The separately stated 7.0% allowance gives 4.94 × 1.07 = 5.2858 m³, reported as 5.29 m³ at justified precision.
- Drainage fall is 102.440 − 102.200 = 0.240 m; gradient is 0.240/12.0 = 0.020 = 2.00% = 1 in 50.
- The pack is not releasable until revision C is reconciled with the opening schedule, ground and reinforcement are competently approved, concrete specification and curing controls are accepted, the outlet and services are verified, and an approved safe method removes any unsupported-excavation entry.
Task 8: Computing and networking
10 marks
A training centre must review a segmented network before controlled release. The address plan is internally consistent, but name resolution fails for one evidence case and the configuration, access-control and recovery records do not agree.
Evidence
- The plan allocates Staff VLAN 10 to 10.20.10.0/26, Learner VLAN 20 to 10.20.10.64/27 and Services VLAN 30 to 10.20.10.96/28, using the first usable address in each subnet as its gateway.
- A learner endpoint is 10.20.10.70/27 with gateway 10.20.10.65. DNS server 10.20.10.100 answers UDP, returns a response marked truncated, and the resolver's required TCP port 53 retry is blocked. The service is reachable directly by its IP address.
- The topology is revision C but the firewall export is revision B. A temporary learner-to-staff any-any rule remains, administration uses a shared account, and the pack has neither an approved change record nor a tested rollback.
For every supplied prefix, calculate the network address, broadcast address, usable host range and usable-host count; validate the endpoint, gateway and DNS addresses. Diagnose the DNS failure from the evidence, propose a least-privilege correction and decide whether the network is ready for controlled release.
Challenge: Specify the authorised tests, logs, configuration comparisons, individual identities, approvals, backup and rollback evidence needed to distinguish addressing, routing, DNS, transport, firewall and application hypotheses without scanning or changing a live network.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct /26, /27 and /28 network, broadcast, usable-range and capacity calculations
- Endpoint, gateway and DNS addresses are validated against the correct subnets
- Truncated UDP response and blocked TCP port 53 retry are used to diagnose the supplied DNS failure
- Correction permits only approved clients to the approved DNS service on required UDP and TCP traffic and rejects any-any access
- Release decision accounts for revision mismatch, shared administration, uncontrolled rule, approval and rollback evidence
- 10.20.10.0/26 has network 10.20.10.0, broadcast 10.20.10.63, usable range 10.20.10.1 to 10.20.10.62 and 62 usable hosts.
- 10.20.10.64/27 has network 10.20.10.64, broadcast 10.20.10.95, usable range 10.20.10.65 to 10.20.10.94 and 30 usable hosts; endpoint .70 and gateway .65 are valid.
- 10.20.10.96/28 has network 10.20.10.96, broadcast 10.20.10.111, usable range 10.20.10.97 to 10.20.10.110 and 14 usable hosts; DNS server .100 is valid.
- The direct-IP success and resolver trace isolate name resolution: the truncated UDP reply requires a TCP port 53 retry, which the policy blocks. Permit Learner VLAN clients to the approved DNS server on UDP and TCP port 53 only, subject to the stated policy and logging.
- Release remains blocked until revision C is reconciled with the firewall export, the learner-to-staff any-any rule is removed, individual privileged identities replace the shared account, and the change, approval, backup and tested rollback evidence is complete.
Task 9: Business administration
10 marks
A training service must decide whether to implement a revised enquiry process and appoint a support supplier. The capacity and scoring calculations can be completed, but the service, procurement, privacy and document-control evidence conflict.
Evidence
- The service receives 480 requests in a 20-day month. Four administrators each have 6.0 stated productive hours per day, average handling time is 25 minutes, 360 requests are resolved at first contact and 90 breach the two-day response standard.
- Supplier A scores quality 82, delivery 70 and service 88 at a quoted cost of £9,600. Supplier B scores 76, 90 and 80 at £9,200. The pre-stated weights are quality 50%, delivery 30% and service 20%.
- The report is revision B while the process map is revision C. Accessibility complaints are excluded from the headline measure, a panel member has declared a relationship with Supplier B but remains a scorer, and the customer export contains dates of birth and personal telephone numbers that are unnecessary for the decision.
Calculate available productive minutes, workload minutes, simplified workload utilisation, first-contact resolution, response-standard compliance and both weighted supplier scores. Interpret the small score difference, reconcile the control evidence and decide whether the process and supplier recommendation are ready for approval.
Challenge: Specify the demand, service, accessibility, procurement, conflict, privacy, revision, financial-control and approval evidence needed before implementation, and explain how each result could change the decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct capacity, workload, utilisation, first-contact resolution and service-standard calculations with definitions and limitations
- Correct weighted supplier scores and proportionate interpretation of the narrow difference
- Accessibility exclusion, declared conflict and unnecessary personal data are treated as material governance issues
- Revision mismatch, independent review, delegated authority and financial controls are integrated into the release decision
- Conclusion separates a desk-based recommendation from authority to appoint a supplier, process personal data or commit funds
- Available productive time is 4 × 20 × 6.0 × 60 = 28,800 minutes; stated workload is 480 × 25 = 12,000 minutes.
- Simplified workload utilisation is 12,000/28,800 × 100 = approximately 41.7%, subject to exclusions such as peaks, leave, meetings, complexity and rework.
- First-contact resolution is 360/480 × 100 = 75.0%; response-standard compliance is (480 − 90)/480 × 100 = 81.25%.
- Supplier A scores 82×0.50 + 70×0.30 + 88×0.20 = 79.6; Supplier B scores 76×0.50 + 90×0.30 + 80×0.20 = 81.0. The 1.4-point difference does not override due diligence, conflict management, scoring evidence, cost and approval controls.
- Approval remains blocked until revisions are reconciled, accessibility evidence is restored and reviewed, the conflicted scorer is handled independently, unnecessary personal data is removed under an authorised record process, and procurement, budget, segregation-of-duties and approval evidence is complete.
Task 10: Accounting and finance
10 marks
A simulated training service must close its period and decide whether its accounts, cash forecast and control evidence are ready for independent review. The trial balance agrees, but the adjustments, bank reconciliation and source records reveal unresolved differences and control failures.
Evidence
- The unadjusted records show revenue 84,000 credit, purchases 36,000 debit, wages 18,000 debit, rent 9,600 debit, equipment cost 24,000 debit, accumulated depreciation 6,000 credit, trade receivables 14,400 debit, bank 7,150 debit and trade payables 9,800 credit. The trial balance totals agree.
- Rent includes 1,600 for the next period; wages of 2,250 are incurred but unpaid; equipment is depreciated at 20% of cost under the stated straight-line policy; and verified closing inventory is 7,500. No opening-inventory amount is included in this partial case.
- The bank statement closes at 8,020. Deposits of 1,200 are not yet credited and payments of 950 are not yet presented. Bank charges of 80 and a direct debit of 300 are missing from the cash book. The trial-balance export is revision B, the adjustment schedule is revision C, the inventory sheet lacks reviewer sign-off and a supplier-bank change has no independent verification.
Prepare the rent prepayment, wages accrual and depreciation adjustments; calculate simplified cost of sales, gross profit and the stated partial adjusted profit; correct the cash book; prepare the bank reconciliation and quantify any unexplained difference. Explain why the agreeing trial balance does not prove accuracy and decide whether the reporting pack is ready for independent review.
Challenge: Specify the source, cut-off, inventory, bank, journal, access, segregation, privacy, revision, reviewer and approval evidence needed before release. Explain how profit can differ from cash and how each unresolved result could change the statements, forecast or decision.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct prepayment, accrual, depreciation, carrying-value, cost-of-sales, gross-profit and partial-profit calculations with equal debit and credit effects
- Correct cash-book adjustment and bank-reconciliation treatment of timing differences, with the residual difference quantified rather than hidden
- Clear explanation that trial-balance agreement cannot detect every omission, reversal, classification error, compensation or unsupported journal
- Revision mismatch, unsigned inventory evidence and unverified supplier-bank change are treated as material close and control blockers
- Conclusion separates a learning exercise from professional accounting, tax, audit, investment, statutory-filing and payment authority
- Rent expense becomes 9,600 − 1,600 = 8,000 and a 1,600 prepayment asset is recognised; wages expense becomes 18,000 + 2,250 = 20,250 with a 2,250 accrual liability.
- Depreciation is 24,000 × 20% = 4,800; accumulated depreciation becomes 10,800 and the equipment carrying amount becomes 13,200 under the stated full-year policy.
- With no opening inventory supplied, simplified cost of sales is 36,000 − 7,500 = 28,500; gross profit is 84,000 − 28,500 = 55,500; partial adjusted profit is 55,500 − 20,250 − 8,000 − 4,800 = 22,450 before any other items.
- Corrected cash book is 7,150 − 80 − 300 = 6,770. Adjusted bank-statement balance is 8,020 + 1,200 − 950 = 8,270, leaving an unexplained 1,500 difference that must be investigated; it is not an evidenced timing item.
- An agreeing trial balance tests debit-credit arithmetic only. Complete omissions, equal wrong-account postings, reversals, compensating errors and unsupported balanced journals may remain undetected.
- Release remains blocked until the 1,500 difference is resolved, revisions are reconciled, the inventory evidence is independently reviewed, the supplier-bank change is verified outside the change request and all adjustments, access, approvals and working papers are complete.
Task 11: Agriculture and environmental technology
10 marks
A simulated 2.4-hectare training farm must choose between sole maize and a maize-legume intercrop while planning dry-season water use and demonstrating that soil, environmental, welfare and safety evidence is sufficient for review.
Evidence
- Sole maize is expected to yield 3.6 tonnes per hectare at 280 currency units per tonne with variable cost 520 per hectare. The intercrop expects 3.1 tonnes of maize and 0.75 tonnes of legume per hectare; legume is valued at 460 per tonne and variable cost is 645 per hectare.
- Net irrigation need is 32 millimetres across 2.4 hectares. The proposed distribution efficiency is 75%, copied from a supplier brochure rather than measured. Storage capacity, lawful abstraction and downstream-user evidence are incomplete.
- Only two edge soil samples were taken at inconsistent depths; five rainfall days are missing; no pest-beneficial baseline, worker-risk review, livestock biosecurity boundary or habitat survey is signed off. A sensitivity case reduces intercrop maize yield by 15% and legume price by 10%.
Calculate base-case output value and gross margin per hectare for both options, total net irrigation volume, gross abstraction at the stated efficiency, and the intercrop sensitivity-case output and margin. Explain which option appears stronger under each scenario and why the calculations do not yet authorise implementation.
Challenge: Design the minimum additional soil, weather, irrigation, pest, biodiversity, welfare, safety, land, water, cost and reviewer evidence needed for a defensible decision. State what findings would overturn your recommendation and which actions require competent or regulatory authority.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Correct base-case output, gross-margin, net-water, gross-abstraction and sensitivity calculations with compatible units
- Decision changes appropriately between the base and sensitivity cases without treating either forecast as certainty
- Sampling bias, missing weather, unmeasured efficiency and absent environmental, welfare and safety baselines remain explicit limitations
- Monitoring plan defines indicators, sampling locations, timing, calibration, source control, reviewer competence and stop criteria
- Conclusion separates learner analysis from agronomic, veterinary, pesticide, environmental, land-use, machinery and water authority
- Sole-maize output is 3.6 × 280 = 1,008 per hectare and gross margin is 1,008 − 520 = 488 per hectare.
- Intercrop output is (3.1 × 280) + (0.75 × 460) = 1,213 per hectare and gross margin is 1,213 − 645 = 568 per hectare in the base case.
- One millimetre over one hectare equals 10 cubic metres, so net water is 32 × 2.4 × 10 = 768 cubic metres; gross abstraction at 75% efficiency is 768 ÷ 0.75 = 1,024 cubic metres.
- The sensitivity output is (3.1 × 0.85 × 280) + (0.75 × 0.90 × 460) = 1,048.95 per hectare and margin is 1,048.95 − 645 = 403.95 per hectare, below the stated sole-maize margin.
- The base case favours the intercrop financially, while the sensitivity case favours sole maize on the supplied margin only; soil cover, diversification, labour, market, risk and ecological effects still require comparable evidence.
- Implementation remains blocked until representative soil and water evidence, complete weather data, measured efficiency, lawful land and water authority, worker and machinery controls, pest and habitat baselines, any livestock biosecurity boundaries, and independent competent review are complete.
Task 12: Hospitality and service operations
10 marks
A school, community or employer must make a decision involving hospitality and service operations, but the information provided is incomplete and two stakeholders disagree about the strongest conclusion.
Evidence
- Source A provides a dated quantitative claim but does not explain its sampling method.
- Source B provides a detailed professional account but may reflect one organisation’s interests.
- A new constraint changes one cost, risk or assumption by 43 percent.
Write a reasoned response that selects and applies an appropriate method, uses the evidence precisely, addresses the strongest alternative and reaches a conditional recommendation.
Challenge: State what additional evidence could overturn your conclusion and how you would verify it.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Method is relevant and explained
- Evidence is interpreted rather than copied
- Calculations, terminology or citations are accurate
- Alternative and uncertainty are addressed
- Conclusion follows from the analysis
- Define the decision and constraints
- Evaluate the reliability and relevance of each source
- Apply the discipline-specific method step by step
- Compare at least two defensible interpretations
- Give a checked conclusion with limitations and next evidence
Task 13: Health and social-care foundations
10 marks
A school, community or employer must make a decision involving health and social-care foundations, but the information provided is incomplete and two stakeholders disagree about the strongest conclusion.
Evidence
- Source A provides a dated quantitative claim but does not explain its sampling method.
- Source B provides a detailed professional account but may reflect one organisation’s interests.
- A new constraint changes one cost, risk or assumption by 46 percent.
Write a reasoned response that selects and applies an appropriate method, uses the evidence precisely, addresses the strongest alternative and reaches a conditional recommendation.
Challenge: State what additional evidence could overturn your conclusion and how you would verify it.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Method is relevant and explained
- Evidence is interpreted rather than copied
- Calculations, terminology or citations are accurate
- Alternative and uncertainty are addressed
- Conclusion follows from the analysis
- Define the decision and constraints
- Evaluate the reliability and relevance of each source
- Apply the discipline-specific method step by step
- Compare at least two defensible interpretations
- Give a checked conclusion with limitations and next evidence
Task 14: Safety, quality and project practice
10 marks
A school, community or employer must make a decision involving safety, quality and project practice, but the information provided is incomplete and two stakeholders disagree about the strongest conclusion.
Evidence
- Source A provides a dated quantitative claim but does not explain its sampling method.
- Source B provides a detailed professional account but may reflect one organisation’s interests.
- A new constraint changes one cost, risk or assumption by 49 percent.
Write a reasoned response that selects and applies an appropriate method, uses the evidence precisely, addresses the strongest alternative and reaches a conditional recommendation.
Challenge: State what additional evidence could overturn your conclusion and how you would verify it.
Marking criteria and answer guide
- Method is relevant and explained
- Evidence is interpreted rather than copied
- Calculations, terminology or citations are accurate
- Alternative and uncertainty are addressed
- Conclusion follows from the analysis
- Define the decision and constraints
- Evaluate the reliability and relevance of each source
- Apply the discipline-specific method step by step
- Compare at least two defensible interpretations
- Give a checked conclusion with limitations and next evidence