Model solution

For a candidate whose stated intent was "shower daily, bedtime 11:00pm, laundry before the pile is visible from the doorway, two named exercise sessions a week, one hobby session a week," a schedule that meets every definition looks like this: a shower recorded every day; a bedtime at or before 11:00pm each night, satisfying the definition of Bedtime as a specific, named clock time; laundry done by midweek, well before any pile becomes visible from the doorway; exercise entries that name a stated activity on a schedule, such as "30-minute run" or "gym session", not an incidental walk to the vending machine; and a hobby/interest entry naming the same hobby stated as intent, on at least one day — satisfying the definition of Hobby as a recurring activity undertaken for enjoyment, not involving a compiler. Checking a real schedule against your own stated intent and the course's definitions, entry by entry, and naming which definition each one passes or fails, is what earns marks here — not whether the result happens to be a pass or a fail.

Poor solution

Stated intent: "shower daily, bedtime 11:00pm, laundry before the pile is visible from the doorway, two named exercise sessions a week, one hobby session a week." An example submission that fails several entries against it:

This student's hygiene was pretty bad this week and they should go to bed earlier and shower more.

Examiner's notes

Full marks require checking every entry against both your own stated intent and the course's definitions, and naming which definition it passes or fails, and why — submitting a schedule that already looks compliant without ever checking it against your stated intent earns no more credit than the example above; the check is what is being marked, not the outcome. When a submission does include a failure, the exercise entry is the one most often missed: students frequently accept a walk to the vending machine as satisfying their stated intent, when the definition of Exercise specifically excludes it as a non-example. The poor solution above makes the equivalent mistake with the hobby/interest entry: it logs "coding a side project," which fails the definition of Hobby from Week 6 on its own terms — not involving a compiler — the same way the vending-machine walk fails Exercise.

Rubric — out of 15

Model solution

The collared shirt, chinos, belt, and loafers together meet the "semi-formal" Dress code for this seated indoor Occasion. The full suit and tie overshoots: it is reserved for a Job interview, not this occasion. Gym shorts, the hoodie with a hole, and thongs ignore the dress code outright. The bow-tie-printed t-shirt is a graphic, not a garment — pairing it with jeans and sneakers does not meet the expectation it visually references.

Poor solution

The t-shirt with the bow-tie graphic, jeans, and sneakers, because it has a bow tie on it so it counts as formal.

Examiner's notes

The printed-bow-tie confusion is the most commonly chosen wrong answer — full marks require noticing it is a graphic, not an actual garment. Treating the full suit as always the safe choice, rather than its own defined occasion, is the second most commonly missed point.

Rubric — out of 15

Model solution

A strong live attempt opens by asking directly for the stranger's name — for example, "I don't think we've met — I'm [name], what's yours?" — rather than volunteering only your own and hoping for one back. When the stranger volunteers a detail unprompted, the candidate follows it immediately with a specific question, such as "What was that like?" or "What got you into that?", rather than moving on. If neither the hobby nor the trip has come up unprompted by the halfway mark, the candidate asks directly: "Have you been anywhere good recently?" or "What do you get up to outside of this event?" Before answering any question put back to them, the candidate holds a pause of roughly 3.2–3.3 seconds with eye contact, rather than answering instantly or looking away, completing the exchange within the ten-minute window without the conversation stalling.

Poor solution

One candidate's examiner's notes from an actual attempt that went wrong:

• 0:05 — Candidate opened with their own name. Did not ask for mine.
• 0:20 — I mentioned, unprompted, that I'd just got back from a weekend at the coast. Candidate said "nice" and moved on.
• 0:40 — I mentioned, unprompted, that I've been getting into pottery lately. Candidate said "oh cool" and moved on.
• 1:05 — Candidate held a comfortable pause, roughly three seconds, before answering my question about their week.

Examiner's notes

Against the rubric below, this attempt scores in the lowest bands: the name is never asked for, and the hobby and trip are both volunteered by the stranger and immediately dropped rather than drawn out — only the eye-contact criterion is met. Full marks require the candidate to actively elicit all three, not benefit from what the stranger happens to offer.

Rubric — out of 20, as marked live

Model solution

Cast as an incident report: what was agreed was a straightforward three-way split of the slides, discussed over three exchanges. What actually happened is that the group member gave one-word answers three times ("Sure.", "Either.", "Fine.") and checked their watch twice, plus one glance at the door — two of the three named stall cues, present and repeated within a short span. The actual reason is a stalled conversation, not merely a paused one, which is enough to diagnose without further questions. The recommended response is not another question — it is an exit: thank them for their time, name a reason to go, and leave, ending the conversation rather than trying to revive it.

Poor solution

Ask them if everything's okay, since they seem distracted.

Examiner's notes

This exchange deliberately baits the "ask if they're okay" response, which is the specifically named mistake — treating a stalled conversation as one that needs more effort, rather than an ending. Full marks require citing the specific cues counted, not just noticing that something is off, and structuring the answer as an incident report — what was agreed, what actually happened, the actual reason — rather than a single vague impression.

Rubric — out of 20

Model solution

Protein: chicken thighs ($6.00). Starch: rice ($2.00). Vegetable: frozen mixed vegetables ($3.00). Together these come to $11.00, within the stated $12 budget, with $1.00 to spare — everything else in the pantry is left unbought. The slowest item goes on first: rice starts first, chicken thighs go on next, and the frozen vegetables go on last, so all three finish within a few minutes of each other. Taste the rice before declaring it done, since a packet's stated time is a starting guess.

Poor solution

Cook the vegetables first, then the rice, then the chicken last, and eat whatever's ready when it's ready.

Examiner's notes

Reversing the cook order — as the poor answer does — is the most common failure at this station: it produces overcooked vegetables and undercooked chicken at the same moment, rather than three items finishing together. Full marks require the reasoning behind the order, not just the final dish. A separate common mistake is never running a total at all: chicken thighs, canned chickpeas, rice, frozen mixed vegetables, one onion, and garlic together already come to $13.30, over the stated $12, even though each item looks reasonable on its own — the budget has to be checked against a running total, not item by item.

Rubric — out of 30