| CQ_0001 | Q_000001 | Linear requires fully defined scope/requirements upfront; with requirements still being developed, iterative/hybrid/extended are more suitable. Analyst inference from APM BoK8 life-cycle content. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Linear requires fully defined scope/requirements upfront; with requirements still being developed, iterative/hybrid/extended are more suitable. Analyst inference from APM BoK8 life-cycle content. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Linear requires fully defined scope/requirements upfront; with requirements still being developed, iterative/hybrid/extended are more suitable. Analyst inference from APM BoK8 life-cycle content. |
| CQ_0002 | Q_000002 | Voice-only channel: pitch, tone, pace and syntax are the audible/verbal factors; posture and symbols are not audible. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Voice-only channel: pitch, tone, pace and syntax are the audible/verbal factors; posture and symbols are not audible. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Voice-only channel: pitch, tone, pace and syntax are the audible/verbal factors; posture and symbols are not audible. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0006 | Q_000006 | APM BoK8 defines sustainability as balancing environmental, social, economic and administrative considerations; involves organisational AND individual responsibility across the extended life cycle (adoption/benefits realisation). Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. APM BoK8 defines sustainability as balancing environmental, social, economic and administrative considerations; involves organisational AND individual responsibility across the extended life cycle (adoption/benefits realisation). Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. APM BoK8 defines sustainability as balancing environmental, social, economic and administrative considerations; involves organisational AND individual responsibility across the extended life cycle (adoption/benefits realisation). Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0009 | Q_000009 | Earned value expresses work achieved in cost terms (budget x % complete), showing both cost and progress together. Corroborated by APM's official annotated sample answer (SRC_0008, Q6a): EV/CPI/SPI interpretation is the APM way of showing cost-and-progress performance. Analyst inference with official corroboration. | probable | 95 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Earned value expresses work achieved in cost terms (budget x % complete), showing both cost and progress together. Corroborated by APM's official annotated sample answer (SRC_0008, Q6a): EV/CPI/SPI interpretation is the APM way of showing cost-and-progress performance. Analyst inference with official corroboration. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Earned value expresses work achieved in cost terms (budget x % complete), showing both cost and progress together. Corroborated by APM's official annotated sample answer (SRC_0008, Q6a): EV/CPI/SPI interpretation is the APM way of showing cost-and-progress performance. Analyst inference with official corroboration. |
| CQ_0010 | Q_000010 | Government policy and regulation are classically mapped to the Political element of PESTLE in APM material; some frameworks would place regulation under Legal. No official key; analyst inference flags ambiguity. | disputed | 65 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Government policy and regulation are classically mapped to the Political element of PESTLE in APM material; some frameworks would place regulation under Legal. No official key; analyst inference flags ambiguity. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Government policy and regulation are classically mapped to the Political element of PESTLE in APM material; some frameworks would place regulation under Legal. No official key; analyst inference flags ambiguity. |
| CQ_0013 | Q_000013 | BoK8 linear life cycle stages: Concept, Definition, Deployment, Transition, Adoption, Benefits realisation, Termination. Within 'project life cycle' (not extended), Definition (3), Concept (5), Post-project review (6) are the three. Adoption/benefits realisation belong to the extended life cycle. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. BoK8 linear life cycle stages: Concept, Definition, Deployment, Transition, Adoption, Benefits realisation, Termination. Within 'project life cycle' (not extended), Definition (3), Concept (5), Post-project review (6) are the three. Adoption/benefits realisation belong to the extended life cycle. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. BoK8 linear life cycle stages: Concept, Definition, Deployment, Transition, Adoption, Benefits realisation, Termination. Within 'project life cycle' (not extended), Definition (3), Concept (5), Post-project review (6) are the three. Adoption/benefits realisation belong to the extended life cycle. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0014 | Q_000014 | Knowledge transfer to business users is a core transition activity. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Knowledge transfer to business users is a core transition activity. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Knowledge transfer to business users is a core transition activity. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0017 | Q_000017 | Open communication and collaboration directly support cohesion. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Open communication and collaboration directly support cohesion. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Open communication and collaboration directly support cohesion. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0020 | Q_000020 | Thomas-Kilmann: avoiding = low assertiveness + low cooperation; competing = high assertiveness + low cooperation. Analyst inference (standard model). | probable | 90 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)1; (b)4. Thomas-Kilmann: avoiding = low assertiveness + low cooperation; competing = high assertiveness + low cooperation. Analyst inference (standard model). | | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)1; (b)4. Thomas-Kilmann: avoiding = low assertiveness + low cooperation; competing = high assertiveness + low cooperation. Analyst inference (standard model). |
| CQ_0021 | Q_000021 | Change impact analysis focuses on people, process, knowledge/skill impacts of the change on BAU; project monitoring & reporting is project control, not change impact. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Change impact analysis focuses on people, process, knowledge/skill impacts of the change on BAU; project monitoring & reporting is project control, not change impact. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Change impact analysis focuses on people, process, knowledge/skill impacts of the change on BAU; project monitoring & reporting is project control, not change impact. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0022 | Q_000022 | Linear = sequential known phases, clear framework; b/d describe iterative; c describes incremental/iterative. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Linear = sequential known phases, clear framework; b/d describe iterative; c describes incremental/iterative. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Linear = sequential known phases, clear framework; b/d describe iterative; c describes incremental/iterative. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0025 | Q_000025 | c misdefines unconscious bias (it is implicit/unknown); d reflects the evidence-based case for diversity. Analyst inference. | probable | 95 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. c misdefines unconscious bias (it is implicit/unknown); d reflects the evidence-based case for diversity. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. c misdefines unconscious bias (it is implicit/unknown); d reflects the evidence-based case for diversity. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0026 | Q_000026 | RACI maps WBS tasks against OBS roles; workshop supports collaboration and buy-in. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. RACI maps WBS tasks against OBS roles; workshop supports collaboration and buy-in. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. RACI maps WBS tasks against OBS roles; workshop supports collaboration and buy-in. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0029 | Q_000029 | Cost breakdown structure/categorisation by cost type supports analysis and reporting; b/c/d mis-categorise or defer reporting. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Cost breakdown structure/categorisation by cost type supports analysis and reporting; b/c/d mis-categorise or defer reporting. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. Cost breakdown structure/categorisation by cost type supports analysis and reporting; b/c/d mis-categorise or defer reporting. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0030 | Q_000030 | MoSCoW (must/should/could/won't) prioritisation of SMART-checked requirements is the APM approach. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. MoSCoW (must/should/could/won't) prioritisation of SMART-checked requirements is the APM approach. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. MoSCoW (must/should/could/won't) prioritisation of SMART-checked requirements is the APM approach. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0033 | Q_000033 | Personal preference is not a critical planning constraint (may be a nice-to-have). Same question appears as Sample Paper 2 Q14 (exact duplicate). | probable | 95 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Personal preference is not a critical planning constraint (may be a nice-to-have). Same question appears as Sample Paper 2 Q14 (exact duplicate). | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Personal preference is not a critical planning constraint (may be a nice-to-have). Same question appears as Sample Paper 2 Q14 (exact duplicate). |
| CQ_0033 | Q_000054 | EXACT duplicate of Sample Paper 1 Q33 (same text and options). Personal preferences are not a critical constraint. Analyst inference. | probable | 95 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. EXACT duplicate of Sample Paper 1 Q33 (same text and options). Personal preferences are not a critical constraint. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. EXACT duplicate of Sample Paper 1 Q33 (same text and options). Personal preferences are not a critical constraint. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0034 | Q_000034 | Risk analysis cannot guarantee risks do not become issues; that is a purpose of risk response/monitoring. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Risk analysis cannot guarantee risks do not become issues; that is a purpose of risk response/monitoring. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Risk analysis cannot guarantee risks do not become issues; that is a purpose of risk response/monitoring. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0035 | Q_000178 | Any project: (1) aligns expectations with what can realistically be delivered, preventing disappointment/conflict and protecting support; (2) builds trust and buy-in so stakeholders make timely decisions and champion the project. Wind farm: (1) community controversy/resistance must be actively managed or the project stalls; (2) differing views on viability and benefit require clarity on evidence/b | probable | 80 | SRC_0010 | Marking structure 2+3 as published by Wellingtone; scenario links must be explicit. The same scenario (wind farm) appears in official Sample Paper 1 Q35 - structurally identical, wording differs slightly ('on the project's purpose...' vs 'regarding the project's purpose...'). | | Marking structure 2+3 as published by Wellingtone; scenario links must be explicit. The same scenario (wind farm) appears in official Sample Paper 1 Q35 - structurally identical, wording differs slightly ('on the project's purpose...' vs 'regarding the project's purpose...'). |
| CQ_0036 | Q_000036 | The detailed impact evaluation happens in the detailed-evaluation stage, not at the initial raise stage. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. The detailed impact evaluation happens in the detailed-evaluation stage, not at the initial raise stage. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. The detailed impact evaluation happens in the detailed-evaluation stage, not at the initial raise stage. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0038 | Q_000038 | The integrated PMP establishes the baseline against which the project is managed and controlled. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0001 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. The integrated PMP establishes the baseline against which the project is managed and controlled. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. The integrated PMP establishes the baseline against which the project is managed and controlled. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0042 | Q_000042 | Assurance gives confidence and is periodic through the life cycle; statements 1,2,3,6 are false. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Assurance gives confidence and is periodic through the life cycle; statements 1,2,3,6 are false. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Assurance gives confidence and is periodic through the life cycle; statements 1,2,3,6 are false. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0043 | Q_000043 | Analyst inference only, no official key. High deliverable uncertainty -> iterative (or evolutionary) life cycle; iterative delivery helps clarify priorities as learning occurs. Both (a) options 2/3 and (b) options 2/4 are defensible; flagged low confidence. | disputed | 50 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)3; (b)4. Analyst inference only, no official key. High deliverable uncertainty -> iterative (or evolutionary) life cycle; iterative delivery helps clarify priorities as learning occurs. Both (a) options 2/3 and (b) options 2/4 are defensible; flagged low confidence. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)3; (b)4. Analyst inference only, no official key. High deliverable uncertainty -> iterative (or evolutionary) life cycle; iterative delivery helps clarify priorities as learning occurs. Both (a) options 2/3 and (b) options 2/4 are defensible; flagged low confidence. |
| CQ_0045 | Q_000045 | APM BoK8 defines a policy as a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve desired outcomes. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. APM BoK8 defines a policy as a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve desired outcomes. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. APM BoK8 defines a policy as a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve desired outcomes. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0046 | Q_000046 | Sustainability covers social/administrative (as well as environmental/economic) concerns and the whole team can influence it. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Sustainability covers social/administrative (as well as environmental/economic) concerns and the whole team can influence it. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Sustainability covers social/administrative (as well as environmental/economic) concerns and the whole team can influence it. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0049 | Q_000049 | Lower staff morale and diverted management time are negative impacts; 2,4,5 are positive aspects of conflict. Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Lower staff morale and diverted management time are negative impacts; 2,4,5 are positive aspects of conflict. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Lower staff morale and diverted management time are negative impacts; 2,4,5 are positive aspects of conflict. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0050 | Q_000050 | Prioritisation by benefit/value to the end user is the APM-recommended primary factor (MoSCoW based on value). Analyst inference. | probable | 85 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Prioritisation by benefit/value to the end user is the APM-recommended primary factor (MoSCoW based on value). Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Prioritisation by benefit/value to the end user is the APM-recommended primary factor (MoSCoW based on value). Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0053 | Q_000053 | Autonomy + regular in-person rapport-building fits hybrid adaptation; a/b/c are control-oriented. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Autonomy + regular in-person rapport-building fits hybrid adaptation; a/b/c are control-oriented. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Autonomy + regular in-person rapport-building fits hybrid adaptation; a/b/c are control-oriented. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0056 | Q_000057 | Change control: assess impact (cost/quality/time) before deciding. Analyst inference. | probable | 95 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Change control: assess impact (cost/quality/time) before deciding. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: c. Change control: assess impact (cost/quality/time) before deciding. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0065 | Q_000066 | Underspend is legitimate financial performance to report through routine budget reporting; hiding it (a) is wrong; c/d use the wrong instruments. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Underspend is legitimate financial performance to report through routine budget reporting; hiding it (a) is wrong; c/d use the wrong instruments. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Underspend is legitimate financial performance to report through routine budget reporting; hiding it (a) is wrong; c/d use the wrong instruments. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0066 | Q_000067 | Analyst inference only. Benefits are identified with the organisation's representatives (sponsor/benefits owners); the next phase after identification is definition. (a) is uncertain - the current supplier could also provide system-capability information. | disputed | 55 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)4; (b)1. Analyst inference only. Benefits are identified with the organisation's representatives (sponsor/benefits owners); the next phase after identification is definition. (a) is uncertain - the current supplier could also provide system-capability information. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: (a)4; (b)1. Analyst inference only. Benefits are identified with the organisation's representatives (sponsor/benefits owners); the next phase after identification is definition. (a) is uncertain - the current supplier could also provide system-capability information. |
| CQ_0068 | Q_000069 | APM risk management process: initiate, identify, analyse, plan responses, implement responses, monitor, close. Analyst inference. | probable | 90 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. APM risk management process: initiate, identify, analyse, plan responses, implement responses, monitor, close. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: a. APM risk management process: initiate, identify, analyse, plan responses, implement responses, monitor, close. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0069 | Q_000070 | The governance structure itself does not drive re-planning (though governance decisions might); new risks, lessons learned and scope changes do. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. The governance structure itself does not drive re-planning (though governance decisions might); new risks, lessons learned and scope changes do. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. The governance structure itself does not drive re-planning (though governance decisions might); new risks, lessons learned and scope changes do. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0073 | Q_000074 | Risk identification, risk analysis and contingency planning are the uncertainty-management parts of integrated planning. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Risk identification, risk analysis and contingency planning are the uncertainty-management parts of integrated planning. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: b. Risk identification, risk analysis and contingency planning are the uncertainty-management parts of integrated planning. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0079 | Q_000080 | Code of conduct, CPD and root-cause analysis address professionalism/standards directly. Analyst inference. | probable | 80 | SRC_0002 | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Code of conduct, CPD and root-cause analysis address professionalism/standards directly. Analyst inference. | | | Analyst-inferred answer: d. Code of conduct, CPD and root-cause analysis address professionalism/standards directly. Analyst inference. |
| CQ_0080 | Q_000097 | 1a (e.g. Assess/Analyse): determine significance/priority of identified risks by assessing probability and impact; pictorial Probability-vs-Impact grid with RAG thresholds; helps teams focus on highest-priority risks. 1b (e.g.): more realistic plans; increased delivery credibility; identify suitable contract type/risk owner; informed choice of best risk owner. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0081 | Q_000098 | 2a (e.g.): dedicated specialist support; project-specific standards/procedures; instant access to admin support; improved information management. 2b (e.g.): simple vs complex communication; single vs dual reporting lines; full vs shared management authority; dedicated vs part-time team. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0081 | Q_000122 | 10a (e.g.): dedicated to the project (available, tailored procedures); consistent reporting. 10b (e.g.): hierarchical departments vs dual reporting; single vs shared authority; communication complexity; team dedication. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0082 | Q_000099 | 3a (e.g.): terms & conditions and governing law; risk ownership; supplier relationship; selection process; pricing arrangements. 3b (e.g.): define requirements; establish selection criteria (fair, transparent, objective, weighted decision matrix); solicit bids; evaluate proposals; select supplier. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0084 | Q_000101 | 5a (e.g.): project priority; resources; timescales; scope change; user acceptance; personality clashes. 5b (e.g.): builds stakeholder trust; more effective team communication; timely provision of information; more concise communication. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0085 | Q_000102 | 6a (e.g.): focus on current work; effective resource utilisation; increased transparency in stakeholder communications; reduced risk through phased funding. 6b (e.g.): scope defined upfront vs evolving; sequential vs concurrent development; stable vs uncertain environment; value realised post-transition vs throughout. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0086 | Q_000103 | 7a (e.g.): satisfying fixed scope constraint; type of resource required per phase; quantity and cost of resources per phase (incl. non-labour). 7b (e.g.): levelling = resource-limited scheduling, can extend end date; smoothing = time-limited scheduling, uses float within fixed end date; impact on critical path differs. | probable | 85 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0087 | Q_000104 | 8a (e.g.): finite vs ongoing; unique vs repetitive; multi vs single-discipline team; temporary vs permanent team; risk tolerant vs risk averse. 8b (e.g.): PESTLE - constraints/stakeholders; SWOT - risks and strengths; VUCA - delivery approach (agile/experimental in volatile conditions). | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0088 | Q_000105 | 9a (e.g.): defined roles; open communication; diverse skills; common goal. 9b (e.g.): stage of team development (directive in Forming, delegate in Performing); maturity/motivation of members; dealing with crisis; improving communication. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0089 | Q_000106 | 10a (e.g. Definition): PM defines what/how/who/when/how much in PMP; sponsor provides oversight, clarifies scope/priorities, approves PMP. 10b (e.g. Users): state requirements, agree acceptance criteria, participate in UAT, accept deliverables at transition. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0090 | Q_000107 | 11a (e.g.): status accounting - trace item changes (what/when/who), correct versions, reduce rework; control - formal change handling. 11b (e.g.): gather; analyse; justify (MoSCoW prioritisation); baseline - sets expectations, minimises handover conflict. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0091 | Q_000108 | 12a: BATNA = Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement; gives leverage/bargaining power, informs walk-away point. 12b (e.g.): Compete (crisis, mandated procedures); Collaborate (win-win, relationship); Compromise (mid-point); Accommodate; Avoid - each appropriate in different situations. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0092 | Q_000109 | 13a (e.g.): standard operating procedures; lessons learned; updated schedule/budget forecasts; project metrics (CPI/SPI). 13b (e.g.): change of strategy; external factors; competitor activity; negative response to early iterations - business case no longer viable. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0093 | Q_000110 | 14a (e.g.): timing of quality activities; how quality will be demonstrated; responsibility for quality; acceptance criteria per output. 14b (e.g.): QC reactive - checks outputs/acceptance criteria; QA proactive - checks processes used to create deliverables; different tools/methods; different responsibility. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0094 | Q_000111 | 15a (e.g.): early benefits provide funding; evolving environment; scale of change; evolving scope - tranches focus on benefits/outcomes. 15b (e.g.): reputation damage; legal action; rework; employee unrest - with compliance rationale in each. | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0095 | Q_000112 | 16a: NPV discounts future cash flows to today's money (inflation/interest); select highest NPV; IRR = discount rate at which NPV = 0, used to compare returns. 16b: Collection (what/where/how/formats); Storage (indexed, versioned, access-controlled e.g. SharePoint); Dissemination (right info to right people at right time). | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0096 | Q_000100 | 4a (e.g.): length/number of iterations; use of product backlog; need for concurrent activity; uncertainty of scope/quality - deployment baseline defines what must/should/could be delivered per iteration. 4b (e.g.): Analytical (bottom-up) uses WBS, aggregates work-package estimates, accurate but slow; parametric uses cost drivers/ratios; analogous uses previous similar projects; Delphi is expert co | probable | 80 | SRC_0005 | | | |
| CQ_0097 | Q_000113 | 1a: adapt style to team diversity/skill/experience (coach for novices, delegate for experts); situational leadership matches style to readiness. 1b: Forming/Storming/Norming/Performing (Tuckman) - characteristics and needs of each stage. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0098 | Q_000114 | 2a: Request for change - formal record of proposed change, reason, initiator, initial impact; Recommendation - analysis of impact (cost/time/quality/risk) and recommendation to approve/defer/reject by change authority. 2b (e.g.): time, cost/resource, quality, stakeholder requirements, alignment with business case. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0099 | Q_000115 | 3a: team members deliver to time/cost/quality, report progress; Product Owner interprets user needs, prioritises backlog (iterative). 3b (e.g.): tailored project procedures, communications/risk/change control, reporting adapted to project stakeholders, specialist support. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0100 | Q_000116 | 4a (e.g.): lessons-learned register; standard procedures; updated forecasts; project metrics. 4b: project life cycle covers delivery; extended life cycle adds operation, benefits realisation and termination - planning scope/benefits/finances must extend accordingly. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0101 | Q_000117 | 5a (e.g.): Identify (cause/description/impact with team); Assess/Analyse (probability x impact). 5b: eliminate/avoid, reduce/mitigate, transfer, accept - with examples. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0102 | Q_000118 | 6a: SPI 0.83 = behind schedule (~12 months vs 10 planned); CPI 1.25 = cost-efficient (earning more per £ spent); EAC £96k vs £60k plan = overall overspend forecast; interpret and recommend action. 6b: Collection (what/where/how/formats/timing); Storage (indexed, secure, versioned); Dissemination (right info to right audience in right form). | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0103 | Q_000119 | 7a (e.g.): personality clashes; resource availability; priority; timescales; scope change; user acceptance. 7b: Thomas-Kilmann modes (compete, collaborate, compromise, accommodate, avoid) with when each is appropriate. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0104 | Q_000120 | 8a: transactional = terms/compliance focus, adversarial, fixed; collaborative = partnership, shared risk/benefit, long-term relationship. 8b (e.g.): best-value supplier selection; quality of outputs; risk allocation; control of variations/disputes. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0105 | Q_000121 | 9a: critical path = task-time focus, sequential float; critical chain = resource-constrained, buffers (project/feeding), considers resource contention. 9b (e.g.): people, equipment/materials, funds - allocated per iteration/timebox; funding released more frequently and in smaller chunks. | probable | 80 | SRC_0006 | | | |
| CQ_0106 | Q_000123 | (marker-ratified 20/20 example) SPI < 1: behind plan. CPI 1.25 > 1: earning more than spending (cost-efficient). Response 1: increase (skilled) resources using available budget to reduce forecast delay. Response 2: revisit the business case and benefits plan with the sponsor - forecast completion £96k vs £120k budget may make cost-saving preferable to on-time delivery; if agreed, capture the basel | probable | 90 | SRC_0008 | Official marker commentary: pass answer earned 10/10 + 10/10 for valid interpretation + justified responses incl. future impacts; fail answer lost marks for no justification. | | Official marker commentary: pass answer earned 10/10 + 10/10 for valid interpretation + justified responses incl. future impacts; fail answer lost marks for no justification. |
| CQ_0107 | Q_000124 | (marker-ratified example, 21/30) Collection: identify what, where from, how, formats, scale; affects later stages; enables version control. Storage: collate into usable system/format (e.g. central database), handle physical formats, access rights to prevent unauthorised change. Dissemination: give the right information to the right people at the right time to enable effective decisions (e.g. repor | probable | 90 | SRC_0008 | Marker commentary: pass earned 6/10, 8/10, 7/10 - marks lost for vague reasoning/repetition; fail (12/30) described elements without reasons/purpose. Corroborates QA APMP-5 Q16b and 2021 Sample Answer Document Q6b. | | Marker commentary: pass earned 6/10, 8/10, 7/10 - marks lost for vague reasoning/repetition; fail (12/30) described elements without reasons/purpose. Corroborates QA APMP-5 Q16b and 2021 Sample Answer Document Q6b. |
| CQ_0120 | Q_000141 | Mark scheme: 10 marks for a complete explanation (>= one comprehensive paragraph) of each of five benefits; partial marks for incomplete explanations. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Structurally identical to 2017 sample paper Q13 and BoK7 Q15a/QA Q15a (programme vs project). Projex claims live-paper origin (unverified). | | Structurally identical to 2017 sample paper Q13 and BoK7 Q15a/QA Q15a (programme vs project). Projex claims live-paper origin (unverified). |
| CQ_0124 | Q_000142 | Mark scheme: (i) 2 marks per correct risk number in correct sequence, 1 mark per correct risk in wrong sequence; (ii) 5 marks per complete statement of a response (threat: avoid/reduce/transfer/accept; opportunity: exploit/enhance/share/reject); (iii) 5 marks per complete statement of preparation action. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Diagram-based (probability/impact grid). Projex claims live-paper origin (unverified). | | Diagram-based (probability/impact grid). Projex claims live-paper origin (unverified). |
| CQ_0125 | Q_000143 | Mark scheme: 3 marks per action listed (no list = no marks); max 7 marks per action clearly described. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | | | |
| CQ_0126 | Q_000144 | Mark scheme: 3 marks per role listed; max 7 marks per role's responsibilities clearly described. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Compare BoK7 Q10b (roles responsibilities) and 2021 Sample Answer Document Q3a. | | Compare BoK7 Q10b (roles responsibilities) and 2021 Sample Answer Document Q3a. |
| CQ_0127 | Q_000145 | Mark scheme: 10 marks for a complete explanation of project context (part i); 10 marks per complete explanation + example of each of four aspects (part ii). | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Compare Project Accelerator Q1 (project context) and Parallel 2015-style context questions. | | Compare Project Accelerator Q1 (project context) and Parallel 2015-style context questions. |
| CQ_0128 | Q_000146 | Mark scheme: 10 marks per complete explanation of each of five features. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Compare BoK7 Q2a/QA Q2a (change control stages) - conceptual duplicate family. | | Compare BoK7 Q2a/QA Q2a (change control stages) - conceptual duplicate family. |
| CQ_0129 | Q_000147 | Mark scheme: max 10 marks each for accurate calculation+discussion of SV/SPI, CV/CPI, EAC, estimated final duration; max 10 marks for explanation of project health; if candidate only calculates without discussing meaning, max 20/50. | probable | 75 | SRC_0057 | EVM calculation family - compare annotated Q6 (2021) and 2017 Q3. | | EVM calculation family - compare annotated Q6 (2021) and 2017 Q3. |
| CQ_0130 | Q_000148 | Mark scheme: 10 marks per complete explanation of each of five considerations. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Compare BoK7 Q5b/QA Q5b (benefits of a communication plan) - related family. | | Compare BoK7 Q5b/QA Q5b (benefits of a communication plan) - related family. |
| CQ_0131 | Q_000149 | Mark scheme: (a) 5 marks per complete statement of a principle; 2 marks if just listed; (b) 10 marks per complete explanation of the effects of not practising a principle. | probable | 70 | SRC_0057 | Governance principles family - compare Parallel 2023 Q1 and PA 'key principles of project governance'. | | Governance principles family - compare Parallel 2023 Q1 and PA 'key principles of project governance'. |
| CQ_0132 | Q_000150 | (delegate answer, comments) Define requirements/acceptance criteria; accept products (advise sponsor); operate the product to realise benefits; liaise with PM over changes; accept the authority of the sponsor. (Alternative delegate answer: identify need, formulate requirements, test products, accept products, use products to realise benefits.) | probable | 65 | SRC_0058 | Compare BoK7 Q10b/QA Q10b (users' responsibilities) - conceptual duplicate. | | Compare BoK7 Q10b/QA Q10b (users' responsibilities) - conceptual duplicate. |
| CQ_0135 | Q_000153 | (delegate answer, comments) Political, economical, sociological, technological, legal (PESTEL-style context factors) - each with a description of how it shapes the project. | probable | 65 | SRC_0058 | Context factors family - compare Projex Q5 and PA Q1. | | Context factors family - compare Projex Q5 and PA Q1. |
| CQ_0136 | Q_000161 | (from tutor feedback, restructured 5x10-point model) 1) coherent and supportive relationship between corporate strategy and portfolio direction; 2) board has overall responsibility for governance of project management; 3) governance procedures supported by methods/controls throughout life cycle (gate reviews); 4) all governance roles, responsibilities and success criteria defined, followed and aud | probable | 80 | SRC_0011 | | | |
| CQ_0137 | Q_000155 | (supplied by source) 1) Producing WBS; 2) Estimating durations for executing work packages; 3) Preparing precedence diagram and calculating floats; 4) Determining the critical path; 5) Determining project milestones. List first, then describe each with examples. | probable | 70 | SRC_0059 | | | |
| CQ_0138 | Q_000156 | (supplied by source) Earned value lets the PM understand whether the project is making good progress; describes products already delivered (budget x % complete); use with caution - underspend may also mean little has been produced. | probable | 70 | SRC_0059 | EVM family - compare 2017 Q3a, Projex Q7, annotated Q6. | | EVM family - compare 2017 Q3a, Projex Q7, annotated Q6. |
| CQ_0143 | Q_000162 | (delegate answer) ensures products conform to specifications; items itemised via PBS; stops waste/rework; maintains team morale; supports supply-chain communications. | probable | 75 | SRC_0011 | | | |
| CQ_0144 | Q_000163 | (tutor-accepted model) 1) tracks plan/expenditure/progress in one integrated framework; 2) measures schedule performance vs baseline; 3) measures actual expenditure vs earned value (efficiency); 4) calculates SPI/CPI for high-level reporting and EAC forecast; 5) weakness: subjective percentage-complete measurement can make metrics unreliable. | probable | 80 | SRC_0011 | | | |
| CQ_0158 | Q_000179 | Best: virtual demo/conferencing tool followed by surveys or group interviews via virtual conferencing. Why: references remote working (avoids travel delay/expense), need for speed, scale of engagement, and iterative delivery approach. A poor answer just asserts face-to-face interviews are always preferable without linking to the scenario. | probable | 80 | SRC_0010 | Wellingtone uses this as a good-vs-poor answer teaching example. | | Wellingtone uses this as a good-vs-poor answer teaching example. |