Veridian WEC12 — Document Meta-Analysis & Rankings

Ultra-Harsh Rubric | All Documents Scored

26 min read

#May 2026

#THE RUBRIC — HOW DOCUMENTS ARE SCORED

CALIBRATION: The original WBS12 business documents provided as reference material score 60/100 on this rubric. These are solid, professional teaching guides — but not exceptional. Everything we build must exceed them.

The rubric has two separate scores:

#SCORE A: QUALITY SCORE (out of 100)

How good is the document as a teaching/learning resource?

#SCORE B: COMMERCIAL/PRODUCT SCORE (out of 160)

How marketable and productisable is this document? Separate from quality. A technically brilliant guide that no one would pay for scores low here.

#RUBRIC A: QUALITY SCORE (100 points)

#A1 — DESCRIPTOR ACCURACY (20 points)

Does every rule trace back to exact Pearson descriptor language? Are marks costs stated precisely? Are ceiling rules quoted verbatim?

Points	Standard
18–20	Every rule quoted with exact descriptor language + series citation. Zero invented rules.
14–17	Most rules traced to descriptors. A few stated without verbatim backup.
10–13	Rules stated correctly but rarely traced to descriptor language. "The examiner wants..." style.
6–9	Some rules correct, some paraphrased, some invented.
0–5	Rules stated without descriptor backing. No series citations.

#A2 — REAL DATA INTEGRITY (20 points)

Does every example use real past-paper data? Are figures accurate? Is context correctly attributed?

Points	Standard
18–20	All data from real past papers, correctly attributed. Zero invented scenarios.
14–17	Mostly real data. 1–2 invented examples or minor factual errors.
10–13	Mix of real and invented. Some figures not attributed.
6–9	Majority invented or unattributed.
0–5	Data made up throughout.

#A3 — STUDENT EXAMPLES AT MULTIPLE LEVELS (20 points)

Are real student-register answers shown at L1/L2/L3/L4 with annotation? Are WRONG vs RIGHT contrasts present?

Points	Standard
18–20	Minimum 3 annotated student answers at different levels. WRONG vs RIGHT on every key distinction. "Diagnose your X" section present.
14–17	2–3 annotated examples. Some WRONG vs RIGHT. Missing diagnose section.
10–13	1 annotated example. Or examples without annotation.
6–9	Worked examples but no student-register language. All polished.
0–5	No annotated student examples.

#A4 — "SAME X AT THREE LEVELS" PROGRESSION (15 points)

Is the identical content shown at L2, L3, L4 with exact sentences added at each transition?

Points	Standard
13–15	Full three-level comparison with bolded transition sentences and time costs.
10–12	Two-level comparison (before/after).
6–9	Describes the levels without showing the same content at each.
0–5	Level map described in abstract without concrete illustration.

#A5 — CONSEQUENCE MAPPING (15 points)

Does every checklist item, rule, and technique state the exact mark consequence of failure?

Points	Standard
13–15	Every item: "if fails → [exact mark loss] → [exact level impact]". Never vague.
10–12	Most items have consequences. A few vague ("loses marks").
6–9	Some items have consequences. Many don't.
0–5	No consequence mapping.

#A6 — EXAM COMPRESSION (10 points)

Is there a rapid-reference version for exam conditions? Can it be used under time pressure?

Points	Standard
9–10	Clear compressed version (memorisable formula, battle card entry, quick reference box).
6–8	Quick reference present but not fully separated from the detailed content.
3–5	No quick reference. Must read full document to find key rules.
0–2	Only long-form content. Not exam-usable.

#RUBRIC B: COMMERCIAL/PRODUCT SCORE (160 points)

#B1 — STANDALONE SELLABILITY (40 points)

Could this document be sold on its own as a premium product to a WEC12 student?

Points	Standard
35–40	Complete, polished, branded. Standalone purchase justifiable at £20–£40.
26–34	Strong content but needs companion documents. Standalone at £10–£20.
16–25	Useful supplement but not standalone. Part of a bundle only.
6–15	Internal reference only. Would not be purchased individually.
0–5	Draft quality. Not sellable in any form.

#B2 — TARGET AUDIENCE CLARITY (30 points)

Does a WEC12 student immediately understand what this is for and why they need it?

Points	Standard
26–30	Instantly clear purpose. First paragraph explains exactly who needs it and what it does. No explanation needed.
20–25	Clear purpose but requires some context.
12–19	Purpose requires explanation. Not immediately obvious.
5–11	Unclear to most students without guidance.
0–4	Opaque. Would not be understood without expert explanation.

#B3 — DIFFERENTIATION (30 points)

Is this demonstrably better than what a student could find for free (YouTube, textbooks, generic revision sites)?

Points	Standard
26–30	Contains real past-paper data, exact descriptor quotes, and annotated student examples that do not exist anywhere else. Clearly superior.
20–25	Better than free alternatives in most dimensions. Some elements available elsewhere.
12–19	Marginally better than free. Could be replicated from mark schemes + 30 minutes.
5–11	Equivalent to good free content.
0–4	Inferior to or equivalent to Wikipedia/free YouTube.

#B4 — FORMAT QUALITY (30 points)

Is the document professionally formatted, scannable, and beautiful enough to justify payment?

Points	Standard
26–30	Professionally formatted. Clean headers. Scannable boxes. Would look at home as a commercial PDF product.
20–25	Good formatting. Some rough edges.
12–19	Functional but basic. Markdown with minimal structure.
5–11	Dense text. Difficult to navigate.
0–4	Draft/notes quality.

#B5 — BUNDLE VALUE (30 points)

How much does this document increase the value of the complete VERIDIAN system?

Points	Standard
26–30	Keystone document. System is significantly weaker without it. Students would buy the bundle for this alone.
20–25	Important document. Bundle clearly better with it.
12–19	Useful addition. Bundle better but not dramatically.
5–11	Minor addition.
0–4	Replicated elsewhere in the system. Redundant.

#DOCUMENT RANKINGS

#CALIBRATION: Original WBS12 Business Documents = 60/100 Quality | 95/160 Commercial

#TIER 1 — DEFINITIVE SKILL GUIDES (N1, N2, N3)

N1 — Definitive Guide to Chains

A1 Descriptor	A2 Data	A3 Examples	A4 Three-Levels	A5 Consequences	A6 Compression	TOTAL A
17/20	18/20	16/20	15/15	13/15	9/10	88/100

B1 Sellable	B2 Clarity	B3 Differentiation	B4 Format	B5 Bundle	TOTAL B
32/40	27/30	28/30	24/30	28/30	139/160

Quality: 88/100 | Commercial: 139/160

Deductions: A1 (−3): Level 3 descriptor was initially misquoted — fixed but one residual imprecision in boundary explanation. A3 (−4): No real student handwriting/script examples — only invented student-register prose. A5 (−2): Some error types lack precise numerical consequence.

N2 — Definitive Guide to Evaluations

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
18/20	17/20	17/20	13/15	13/15	9/10	87/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
33/40	28/30	28/30	23/30	27/30	139/160

Quality: 87/100 | Commercial: 139/160

Deductions: A2 (−3): Most model evaluations use real data but some "diagnose" examples use invented-but-realistic context. A4 (−2): "Same evaluation at three levels" section excellent but Egypt example could be supplemented with a second topic. A5 (−2): Fake patterns section describes consequences verbally but doesn't always quantify exact mark loss.

N3 — Definitive Guide to Judgements

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
18/20	17/20	16/20	14/15	12/15	10/10	87/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
32/40	27/30	27/30	24/30	27/30	137/160

Quality: 87/100 | Commercial: 137/160

Deductions: A3 (−4): Diagnose section uses invented student prose only. The "three killers" section shows corrected sentences but doesn't have a fourth example showing the incorrect version of a genuine high-band student who is just below L3. A5 (−3): Mark cost table covers missing elements but doesn't show the precise mark difference within Level 3 band positions.

#TIER 2 — TECHNIQUE GUIDES

F2 — 6-Mark Analyse Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	18/20	17/20	12/15	14/15	9/10	87/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
29/40	28/30	27/30	23/30	22/30	129/160

Quality: 87/100 | Commercial: 129/160

Strong document. Real past-paper data throughout (Oct 2024 Brazil extract). Three annotated student answers at 2/6, 4/6, 6/6 are well-done. Minor deduction A4: no "same chain at three levels" — the three annotated answers partially compensate but not identically structured.

F3 — 8-Mark Examine Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	18/20	17/20	12/15	13/15	9/10	86/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
29/40	28/30	27/30	23/30	22/30	129/160

Quality: 86/100 | Commercial: 129/160

Excellent explanation of why AO4 is capped at 2 marks. Three annotated student answers using real India Oct 2024 extract data. A5 deduction: position rotation table doesn't include 2025/2026 series (only 2019–2024).

F6 — KAA System Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	17/20	16/20	14/15	14/15	8/10	86/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
27/40	26/30	26/30	22/30	25/30	126/160

Quality: 86/100 | Commercial: 126/160

The vocabulary precision table is genuinely excellent and not found elsewhere. Critical consumption/investment channel error from draft correctly fixed. Sub-agent rebuild improved it significantly. B1 deduction: the vocabulary table is the standout element but the structure guide aspect competes with N1 — positioning unclear in the product.

F7 — Macro Objectives Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	18/20	16/20	10/15	13/15	9/10	83/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
27/40	26/30	27/30	22/30	23/30	125/160

Quality: 83/100 | Commercial: 125/160

The four conflict pairs with complete deployable chains are the standout element — nowhere else in any free resource. Real data (world GDP doubled, emissions +32%, UK CPI 11.1%, Brazil Gini 0.49) throughout. A4 deduction: no "same objectives conflict at three levels" — the diagnose section partially compensates. A3 deduction: student examples are reasonable but only three; the objectives topic needs a fourth example showing the "two conflicts" ceiling error specifically.

F1 — 2-Mark Define Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	19/20	14/20	8/15	13/15	9/10	80/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
28/40	27/30	26/30	22/30	18/30	121/160

Quality: 80/100 | Commercial: 121/160

The 28-term definition bank is genuinely excellent — real mark scheme language throughout. A3 deduction: only 3 annotated examples (recession 2/2, real GDP 2/2 + 1/2, deflation 2/2 and 1/2) — the guide would benefit from 5–6 examples across different term types including one showing a circular definition trap. A4 deduction: no same-definition-at-three-levels equivalent (less relevant for 2-mark questions but still applicable). B5 lower because the definition guide is somewhat standalone — doesn't connect as tightly to the essay technique guides.

F11 — 4-Mark Questions Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	17/20	14/20	9/15	13/15	9/10	79/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
26/40	26/30	25/30	22/30	19/30	118/160

Quality: 79/100 | Commercial: 118/160

Three question types well-explained. Draw text=zero rule strongly evidenced. Deductions: A3 — only 2 partial-mark worked examples for Explain; no partial marks shown for Draw or Calculate. A4 — no "same explain at three levels" equivalent (applicable and missing). The Calculate section needs more of the most-tested calculation types with worked solutions showing own-figure mark.

F5 — Self-Mark Checklist

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
16/20	17/20	10/20	6/15	15/15	10/10	74/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
25/40	28/30	24/30	24/30	24/30	125/160

Quality: 74/100 | Commercial: 125/160

This document's quality score is deliberately lower — checklists inherently score lower on A3 (no student examples) and A4 (no three-level progression). But commercially it is extremely strong — the rapid 10-rule version is exactly what students print the night before. The consequence column is complete and precise. B1 lower because checklists are not standalone purchases — they are companion tools.

F8 — Timing Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
15/20	15/20	8/20	5/15	13/15	10/10	66/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
22/40	27/30	23/30	22/30	20/30	114/160

Quality: 66/100 | Commercial: 114/160

Timing guides inherently score low on student examples and three-levels content — neither applies. The four hardest stops with psychological framing is the standout element. The master timetable and marks-per-minute table are genuinely useful. Deduction: no examiner quotes for the specific timing guidance (the Oct 2019 "continued to develop their response" quote is strong but only used once).

F9 — Diagram Masterlist

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
14/20	16/20	9/20	4/15	11/15	8/10	62/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
24/40	27/30	23/30	19/30	22/30	115/160

Quality: 62/100 | Commercial: 115/160

Text-based diagrams in markdown are structurally correct but visually inferior to the actual Pearson diagrams students need to replicate. J-curve explanation with volume lag is genuinely superior to most textbooks. Deduction: no annotated student diagram examples showing common mislabellings. The selector table is practical and strong. Scores lower quality because the diagram guide category is inherently weaker without actual diagram images — a limitation of the format rather than the content.

F10 — Exam Day Protocol

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
16/20	14/20	7/20	3/15	12/15	10/10	62/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
21/40	27/30	22/30	22/30	18/30	110/160

Quality: 62/100 | Commercial: 110/160

Protocol/procedural documents inherently score lower on student examples and three-level content. The zero-mark phrase embargo and 5-minute extract protocol are genuinely useful. Zero written text on Draw questions — confirmed examiner quote. The document is functional but feels like a list rather than a teaching document. Needs more narrative to justify each rule.

R1 — 14-Mark Discuss Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
16/20	17/20	14/20	11/15	13/15	8/10	79/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
30/40	27/30	26/30	23/30	26/30	132/160

Quality: 79/100 | Commercial: 132/160

Scheduled for N-standard rebuild. Current document: KAA level error fixed, bilateral development explained, Jun 2023 India worked example. Deductions: A3 — only one worked example; no annotated student answers at 9/14, 12/14, 14/14. A4 — no "same 14-mark at three levels" equivalent. Rebuild will address these.

R2 — 20-Mark Evaluate Guide

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	17/20	14/20	12/15	13/15	8/10	81/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
34/40	28/30	27/30	24/30	28/30	141/160

Quality: 81/100 | Commercial: 141/160

The highest commercial score of any document — a complete 20-mark guide with a worked 18/20 essay is the most commercially valuable single item in the system. Deductions: A3 — only one essay exemplar shown; needs student answers at 12/20, 15/20, and 18–20/20 annotated comparatively. A4 — within-Level 4 breakdown partially covers this but not a true "same essay at three levels."

#TIER 3 — KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENTS

T3-12 — Inflation Costs Master Brief

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	19/20	12/20	8/15	14/15	9/10	79/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
28/40	27/30	28/30	22/30	25/30	130/160

Quality: 79/100 | Commercial: 130/160

Excellent data density — real Pearson indicative content from Jun 2022, Oct 2019, Jun 2019. Two complete 5-stage chains. Three typed evaluation moves. Three conditional judgement templates. Data bank with UK, USA, Argentina, Germany. Deductions: A3 — no annotated student answers showing what a 12/20 inflation costs essay looks like vs a 17/20. A4 — no "same chain at three levels" for inflation costs specifically. These are the key gaps for the next rebuild.

T3-10 — Supply-Side Master Brief

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	19/20	12/20	8/15	14/15	9/10	79/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
29/40	27/30	28/30	22/30	26/30	132/160

Quality: 79/100 | Commercial: 132/160

The free market vs interventionist distinction is critical and well-explained — most students conflate these and lose marks. South Korea data ($150→$30,000 GDP per capita) is the best own-country data point for this topic. Real data from five different mark scheme series. Same deductions as T3-12 on student examples and three-levels content.

T3-1 — Past Paper Pattern Analyser

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
16/20	18/20	8/20	2/15	10/15	8/10	62/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
22/40	27/30	26/30	22/30	24/30	121/160

Quality: 62/100 | Commercial: 121/160

Pattern analysis documents inherently score low on student examples and three-level progression. The topic frequency tables and rotation analysis are genuinely valuable. The probability predictions for 2026 are the highest-value single element.

T3-2 — Topic Probability Matrix

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
15/20	17/20	7/20	2/15	9/15	7/10	57/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
20/40	26/30	26/30	21/30	22/30	115/160

Quality: 57/100 | Commercial: 115/160

Essential analytical tool but low standalone quality score because it's reference data rather than teaching. Commercial value is high as a selling point ("we analysed every paper since 2019") but low standalone purchase.

T3-4 — Mark Scheme Content Bank

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
18/20	19/20	8/20	2/15	10/15	7/10	64/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
24/40	27/30	29/30	21/30	26/30	127/160

Quality: 64/100 | Commercial: 127/160

The highest differentiation score (29/30) of any knowledge document — real Pearson indicative content from actual mark schemes is genuinely unique. Students cannot replicate this from free resources without spending hours with mark schemes. Quality lower because it's a content bank not a teaching guide.

T3-6/7 — Examiner Report Synthesis

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
17/20	18/20	9/20	4/15	11/15	7/10	66/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
23/40	26/30	27/30	21/30	24/30	121/160

Quality: 66/100 | Commercial: 121/160

Cross-series patterns with verbatim examiner quotes is valuable. "Never Say This" list with series citations is the standout element. Lower student examples score because synthesis documents don't include teaching examples by nature.

WEC12_Complete_Question_Bank

A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	TOTAL A
18/20	20/20	5/20	0/15	8/15	9/10	60/100

B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	TOTAL B
26/40	28/30	29/30	22/30	27/30	132/160

Quality: 60/100 | Commercial: 132/160

Perfect data integrity (A2: 20/20) — every question from every paper, zero invented content. High commercial differentiation — this compilation does not exist anywhere for free in this format. Quality score limited by document type: a question bank cannot have student examples or three-level progressions by definition. Extremely high bundle value — this is the reference backbone students use for all practice.

#RANKINGS SUMMARY

#Quality Rankings (A Score / 100)

Rank	Document	Score
1	N1 — Definitive Guide to Chains	88
2	N2 — Definitive Guide to Evaluations	87
2	N3 — Definitive Guide to Judgements	87
4	F2 — 6-Mark Analyse	87
5	F3 — 8-Mark Examine	86
6	F6 — KAA System Guide	86
7	F7 — Macro Objectives	83
8	R2 — 20-Mark Evaluate	81
9	R1 — 14-Mark Discuss	79
10	F1 — 2-Mark Define	80
11	T3-12 — Inflation Costs Brief	79
11	T3-10 — Supply-Side Brief	79
11	F11 — 4-Mark Questions	79
14	F5 — Self-Mark Checklist	74
15	T3-6/7 — Examiner Synthesis	66
16	F8 — Timing Guide	66
17	T3-4 — Mark Scheme Content Bank	64
18	T3-1 — Pattern Analyser	62
18	F9 — Diagram Masterlist	62
20	F10 — Exam Day Protocol	62
21	WEC12 Question Bank	60
—	Calibration: WBS12 Business Docs	60
22	T3-2 — Topic Probability Matrix	57

#Commercial Rankings (B Score / 160)

Rank	Document	Score
1	R2 — 20-Mark Evaluate	141
2	N1 — Definitive Guide to Chains	139
2	N2 — Definitive Guide to Evaluations	139
4	N3 — Definitive Guide to Judgements	137
5	R1 — 14-Mark Discuss	132
5	WEC12 Question Bank	132
5	T3-10 — Supply-Side Brief	132
8	T3-12 — Inflation Costs Brief	130
9	F2 — 6-Mark Analyse	129
9	F3 — 8-Mark Examine	129
11	T3-4 — Mark Scheme Content Bank	127
12	F6 — KAA System Guide	126
13	F7 — Macro Objectives	125
13	F5 — Self-Mark Checklist	125
15	F1 — 2-Mark Define	121
15	T3-1 — Pattern Analyser	121
15	T3-6/7 — Examiner Synthesis	121
18	T3-2 — Topic Probability Matrix	115
18	F9 — Diagram Masterlist	115
20	F8 — Timing Guide	114
21	F11 — 4-Mark Questions	118
22	F10 — Exam Day Protocol	110

#SYSTEM-WIDE OBSERVATIONS

Average quality score: 73/100 — significantly above the 60/100 calibration baseline.

Highest quality gap: Every document with student examples scores 79+. Every document without student examples scores ≤66. This confirms the business standard requirement — student examples are the single biggest quality driver.

Highest commercial gap: Essay guides (R1, R2) and definitive skill guides (N1, N2, N3) have the highest commercial value. Reference documents (T3-1, T3-2) have lower commercial value despite high utility within the system.

Priority rebuilds for quality improvement:

R1★ and R2★ (14-mark and 20-mark) — adding annotated student answers at multiple levels will push both above 90/100
F9 (Diagram Masterlist) — needs actual diagram images not text representations
F11 (4-Mark Questions) — needs partial-mark worked examples for all three types

Documents that will never exceed ~70/100 by design: Timing guides, protocol documents, checklists, and reference banks cannot score high on student examples or three-level progressions — they are not that type of document. Their commercial value is real but they require companion documents to justify purchase.

VERIDIAN V6 Economics | Document Meta-Analysis & Rankings | May 2026

Veridian Legacy · progress saved in this browser · sign in to sync across devices

Up next

Vocabulary Precision List

N14 | Version 2 — N-Standard | VERIDIAN™

14 min