Once again we see challenge through obfuscation. It should not be a requirement of any assessment that the candidate has to be able to read the mind of the assessor. If there is an inconsistency between the Instructions for Candidates and the Marking Instructions and something is not specified in one but strongly hinted at by the other then this has to be addressed by bringing them into line. FWIW my reading of the Marking Instructions would indicate that a candidate showing that they have understood that an annotated structure diagram showing data flow and a clear description of each part of the program will suffice. Alternatively a structure diagram not annotated with data flow, and a separate data-flow diagram would also meet the requirements of the Marking Instructions. We tell the candidates that Structure Diagrams (graphic) and Pseudocode (textual) are alternative ways to design programs. If pseudocode is what the assessor was looking for then it should be specified in the IfC and the MI as was done in the past.
From what I can gather though this has not been the approach verifiers have taken. If the task is open to interpretation then candidates have to be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as the documentation is revised and the doubt is removed.
I had a similar issue over the N5 Music Fans Coursework task where I was informed by a verifier that they were looking for candidates to make the email field in the database a hyperlink and penalising them if they did not. I asked the verifier where in the task it said it had to be a hyperlink and they replied that the task required the candidate to state assumptions and they thought it was an appropriate assumption that the candidate should make. Again, the candidate being expected to read the mind of the assessor!
.
