Our students were among the 1412 that sat the 'rogue paper' this summer . Yesterday I recieved an email from AQA giving the modified grade bounderies. It contained a link to this document http://aqa.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/aqa.cfg/php/ma/fattach_get.php?1=AvUK~wppHP8STLz7GqIe~yL~Jvsq~z~~oyJKfDr~&2=203040 (see page 5). It clearly stated the max mark is 66 - I can only see 61(62) marks on the paper. This hardly fills me with confidence over the grade bounderies. My reply to AQA is given below. Dear AQA<font size="2" face="tahoma"></font> I am very surprised to see yet another error appearing with regard to the Unit 2 paper. In the table for the Unit 2 Foundation Tier Rogue paper on page 5 i<font size="2" face="tahoma">t states the maximum mark for the paper is 66. I can only see 62 marks on the paper or possible 61. This hardly fill me with confidence over the accuracy of the grade boundaries.</font> Pages 2 to 3 Question 2 is missing. Question 1 is out of 5 marks and question 3 out of 4 and question 4 is also 4 marks. This gives a total of 13 not the 17 indicated. Pages 4 to 5 This is as published 15 marksPages 6 to 7 This is as published 14 marks Pages 8 to 9 This is as published 13 marks Pages 10 to 11. While it is possible to answer the first 16a (1 mark) the second 16a and 16b refer to mobile phone call plans not the tool hire of the graph so the 5 marks for these questions are not available. there are only 7 marks available on these pages. I am sure that a number of students will have told to ignore question 16 in total making only 6 marks available 13+15+14+13+7=62 or 61 if the whole of question 16 is ignored <font size="2" face="tahoma"></font> In effect this means students needed to get 56% on the planned paper to get a C and 73% on the 'rogue' paper to get the same grade. While there were some advantage given to some students over the rogue paper, there was considerable disadvantage in the interruptions that were necessary. When will you be publishing the reasoning behind how the grade boundaries were determined and the weightings given to all the factors involved? In your email your refer to 'mean, standard deviation' etc. I can find no reference to them in the document you link to.