Diagram Masterclass

#WBS11 — Diagram/Graph Masterclass: Scope Finding (Unit 1: Marketing and People)

Provenance (2026-09-29). Read first: research/veridian/WBS11-verified-facts.md, content/veridian/curriculum/wbs11/demand-supply-and-elasticity.ts, and every file already in content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs11/. This document answers one question honestly — does WBS11 genuinely need a standalone diagram/graph masterclass — and the answer is not quite either of the two forced options: diagrams are a real, separately-markable skill on this paper, but that skill is a single diagram family, and it is already fully covered, from every angle a masterclass would cover, across five existing files. Writing a sixth file that restates the same mark-scheme mechanics would be duplication, which this course's standing discipline rules out. No new primary-source claim is made below; every citation points to a fact already verified in the files named. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel.

#The one real diagram skill on this paper

Appendix 6 of the spec names Construct as its own command word, distinct from Calculate, Explain or Analyse, defined as "draw an accurately labelled diagram," worth 4 marks [SPEC Appendix 6, p.56]. In every series checked, the only content this command word has actually been attached to is the supply-and-demand diagram (spec 1.3.2.3): Jun 2023 Q1(b) (sportswear/ advertising, demand shift), Jun 2024 Q2(b) (rice/pasta, demand shift), and Oct 2021 Q1(b) (ice-cream, supply shift) [MS-Jun23, MS-Jun24, MS-Oct21]. The mark split is identical and stable across all three: 1 mark for correctly labelled axes and both curves, 2 marks for the original equilibrium plus the correct single-curve shift, 1 mark for the new equilibrium and its price/quantity effect. This is a genuine, separately-creditable diagram skill — not one absorbed into surrounding prose.

This skill is already covered in full, in five places, and this document does not repeat any of it:

• demand-supply-and-elasticity.ts — teaches the diagram itself (an interactive k: "diagram" component with labelled axes and equilibrium points), the single-shift-only rule, the equilibrium-labelling rule, and the demand-vs-supply mirror-image trap, each tied to a real question.
• codex-deep-dive-demand-supply-and-elasticity.md, Part 3 — the full K1/App2/An1 mechanics, the demand-vs-supply mirror-image table (price and quantity move together on a demand shift, oppositely on a supply shift), and the complete anchor ledger across every series checked.
• forge-exam-technique-guide.md, §2 — the generic Calculate/Construct technique paragraph ("write the formula or draw the axes and original equilibrium first"), the two highest-frequency diagram errors, and the trap-taxonomy row cross-referencing the product-life-cycle diagram trap below.
• forge-tariff-4-mark-questions.md, Part 3 — a dedicated Construct deep-dive: the mark scheme re-verified directly, the drawing-order technique (axes → original equilibrium → single shift → new equilibrium, each labelled before moving on), and a self-mark checklist.
• forge-question-selector-guide.md — a one-line cross-reference to the same K1/App2/An1 shape for exam-day question selection.

A sixth file restating axis-labelling conventions, the single-shift rule, or the mirror-image trap would not be "genuinely new" — it would be the same verified facts in a sixth wrapper.

#What is not a separately-markable diagram skill on this paper

Three other diagrams appear in WBS11 content, and none of them carries its own construct-style marks:

• Market mapping (spec 1.3.1.3) is tested via 10-mark Assess essay questions (e.g. Jun 2024 Q2(e), Market Kurly), not via Construct. codex-deep-dive-meeting-customer-needs.md already states the real reason: choosing the right two axes is the assessed judgement; "drawing the diagram is mechanical." No mark scheme checked awards marks for the map itself.
• The Boston Matrix and product life cycle are tested via 8-to-10-mark Discuss/Assess questions where the diagram is background reasoning, not the marked object. The real, confirmed failure mode is the opposite of a diagram mark existing: a student who "drew the product life cycle diagram and gave a description of what it is" gained no marks at all [PEF-Jan20]. This trap is already named (plc-diagram-alone-is-not-an-answer) and cross-referenced in forge-exam-technique-guide.md's trap table — it is evidence against treating these diagrams as a creditable skill in their own right, not evidence for one.
• No further "construct/interpret standard graphical forms" anchor (the spec's QS3 quantitative skill [SPEC Appendix 7, p.57]) was found in the facts bank beyond the supply-and-demand diagram itself — no bar-chart, line-graph or index-number-graph construction question turned up in any series checked.

#Why this document stops here

The task this document was written for is to write a real masterclass if diagrams genuinely earn marks as their own skill, or say plainly if they don't. WBS11's real answer sits between those two setups: one diagram type is genuinely, separately markable, but the material a masterclass would contain for it already exists, verified, cross-referenced and technique-tested, in the five files listed above. Forcing a longer document here would mean either padding around those same facts or inventing something this paper's real record does not support — both ruled out by this course's standing discipline. The honest output is this scope note, plus the five pointers above.