Spaced Repetition Schedule

#WBS11 — Spaced Repetition Schedule (Unit 1: Marketing and People)

Provenance (2026-09-28). Built from content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs11/signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 (the real topic-frequency table this schedule's tiering is derived from, row by row) and research/veridian/WBS11-verified-facts.md §4 (the eight cross-cutting patterns, specifically pattern 8 on first-examination topics). Cross-checked against forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §1 (the eight paper-wide structural-trap categories, used here as their own repetition tier) and forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4.2 and §6 (the one topic whose real status has moved since the facts bank's own count, handled explicitly in §4 below). Also checked against forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md, so the two documents divide the calendar rather than overlap — see §5. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel. No likelihood percentage or grade boundary appears anywhere below. Every repetition count and every day-interval in §3 is this course's own scheduling construction, not a cited psychology finding — flagged as such at first use, exactly as paper-anatomy.ts flags its own 1.5-minutes-per-mark heuristic and forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md flags its own four-block split.

---

#0. What this is, and what it deliberately doesn't repeat

This document answers one question: given a real, uneven distribution of exam coverage across WBS11's spec points, how many times should a student actually revisit each one before the exam, and in what order? Nothing below re-teaches content. It does not reproduce:

• the frequency table itself, or the grade-boundary gap — both live in signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md, cited by row below rather than copied wholesale;
• the tariff-by-tariff technique, the danger-phrases digest, or the self-mark checklist — all in forge-exam-technique-guide.md;
• the eight structural-trap categories' own descriptions — those live in forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §1, referenced here only by category number;
• any definition or application paragraph — both live in codex-definitions-and-application-bank.md;
• the 48-hour pre-exam protocol — that is forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md's job entirely; see §5 for exactly where this document's own scope ends and that one's begins.

What it adds: an actual repetition count per topic, built by reading the real sightings-per-row in the frequency table as a weighting signal, not by assuming every spec point deserves the same number of passes. That is the one thing none of this paper's other technique-hub documents does.

---

#1. Why repetition count should track real frequency — the actual reasoning

A flat schedule — every spec point reviewed the same number of times, in alphabetical or spec-numbered order — treats a sub-point tested in every series checked (1.3.2, demand/supply/PED/YED) the same as one with zero confirmed sightings across a 19-series archive (sampling methods). That is not a neutral default; it under-revises the topic most likely to cost marks and over-revises a topic with no real past-paper pattern to rehearse against. signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md already states the correct standard for reading these counts: "seen in N of M series checked," never a predicted probability [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1] — this schedule inherits that standard exactly. A "0" is a real, disclosed gap in the archive reviewed, not permission to skip the sub-point (the spec still requires it) — but it is a legitimate signal that repeated practice against that sub-point has nothing real to practice against, since there is no confirmed question shape, command word, or trap to drill.

One real complication cuts the other way. WBS11-verified-facts.md §4's eighth cross-cutting pattern is that a spec sub-point's first real examination is disproportionately badly answered, confirmed independently for the PED–total-revenue link (January 2023) and the entrepreneur-to-leader transition (June 2023), both explicitly flagged by the examiner as being examined for the first time and both scoring poorly as a direct result [WBS11-verified-facts.md §4 item 8]. That pattern means a thin row is not low-stakes — if it does appear, the student meeting it will be arriving cold either way, the same disadvantage every examiner report describes. This schedule's actual compromise, stated explicitly rather than left implicit: heavily-tested topics get more repetitions because there is a real, confirmed pattern worth drilling repeatedly; thin and zero-history topics get fewer repetitions not because they matter less, but because a single accurate encoding pass is the honest ceiling of what repeated practice can add when no real exam-question pattern exists to rehearse against — the same logic forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md §5A already applies to the final 48 hours, extended here across the whole revision window instead of just the last two days.

---

#2. The five repetition tiers, built directly from the frequency table

#Tier 0 — paper-wide traps (every cycle, no topic attached)

These are not spec points at all — they are the structural failure patterns forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §1 already found repeated across three or more series regardless of topic, which is exactly what makes them a standing item rather than something that rotates. Missing counterbalance on Discuss/Assess/Evaluate is confirmed in "every one of the 6 series reviewed, without exception — the single most-repeated finding in the whole dataset" [forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §1, category 4] — a higher and more consistent hit rate than any single spec point in the frequency table, including Tier 1 below. Stem-echo, extract-copy and calculation hygiene are each confirmed across four to six series [forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §1, categories 1/2/6]. Because these attach to whichever topic actually appears rather than to one topic that might not come up, they earn a place in every single revision cycle in §3, not a rotation slot.

#Tier 1 — the one sub-point confirmed in literally every series checked

1.3.2 (demand, supply, PED, YED) — "the only spec point that appeared in literally every series checked" across the seven series with a dedicated fetch for this sub-point [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1]. No other row in the table matches this. It gets its own tier, on its own, for that reason alone — not because it is inherently harder, but because it is the single most reliably-recurring content on the whole paper.

#Tier 2 — strong, multi-year confirmed coverage (4+ independent sightings, most series checked)

Read directly off the frequency table, these seven rows each show sightings spread across four or more of the series checked, not clustered in one year:

• 1.3.1.2 Market research (primary/secondary, qual/quant, test marketing) — five confirmed sightings across Jun19, Jun23/Jan23, Jun24, Oct24† [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.1.3 Market positioning (orientation, mapping, segmentation, competitive advantage, differentiation, adding value) — six confirmed sightings, one in nearly every core series [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.3.1 Marketing objectives, PLC, Boston Matrix, mix, B2B/B2C, loyalty — seven confirmed sightings across Jun19, Jan20, Jan23, Jun23, Jan24, Oct22 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.3.3 Promotion and branding — five confirmed sightings across Jun22, Jan23, Jan24, Jun24 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.4.4 Motivation theory and practice — four confirmed sightings across Jun19, Jun22, Jun24, Jan24 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.5.1–2 Entrepreneurs, motives, characteristics — four confirmed sightings across Jun22, Jun24, Jan23, Jan25† [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.5.3 Business objectives — four confirmed sightings across Jun19, Jan23, Jun23, Jan24 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].

#Tier 3 — thin but real (1–3 confirmed sightings, not zero)

Real, cited, but sparse enough that they don't earn Tier 2's rotation frequency:

• 1.3.1.1 Dynamic markets / online retailing — one sighting, Jan20 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.1.1 Risk vs uncertainty — one sighting, Jan20 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.3.2 Design mix; ethical sourcing — three sightings, Jun19/Jan24/Jun22 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.3.4 Pricing strategies — three sightings, Jun23/Jan23/Jan24 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.3.5 Distribution ("place," shared with 1.3.3.1) — one sighting, Jun19 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.4.1 Staffing (flexible workforce, bargaining, dismissal/redundancy) — four sightings across a seven-series check, Jun24/Jan23/Oct21 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.4.2 Recruitment, selection, training — one sighting in seven series checked, Oct21 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.4.3 Organisational design — two sightings in seven series checked, Jun23/Oct21 [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.4.5 Leadership — three sightings, Jun22/Jun23/Oct24† [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1].
• 1.3.5.4 Business choices (opportunity cost) — see §4 below; placed here rather than Tier 4 specifically because of a real finding not yet folded into the facts bank's own count.

#Tier 4 — confirmed zero in every series checked so far (spec-only, one pass)

Every item below shows "none found" against the specific archive checked — some against as many as 19 series — in signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1's own table:

• Sampling methods (random/quota/stratified) — zero across all 19 series checked.
• Direct/indirect competition, as its own question (distinct from mass/niche markets, which is Tier 3-adjacent within the same row) — none found.
• Social-trend pricing (online sales, comparison-site pressure on price) — none found.
• Distribution channel stages and changes-in-distribution-methods as their own question — none found, distinct from the one "place" sighting logged under Tier 3 above.
• Staff as an asset vs a cost, by name — none found.
• Induction training, by name — none found.
• Centralised/decentralised structure, by name — none found.
• Mayo and Herzberg, named specifically (Taylor and Maslow are confirmed named elsewhere) — none found.
• Paternalistic and laissez-faire leadership, by name (democratic and autocratic are confirmed named elsewhere) — none found.
• Intrapreneurship and barriers to entrepreneurship — none found.

---

#3. The six-cycle schedule

The cycles below use deliberately widening gaps — 0, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30 days from the first cycle — this course's own scheduling construction for weighting this paper's real tiers, not a cited spacing-effect study. The widening exists so Tier 1 and Tier 0 material (which repeats every cycle) gets revisited before it can fade, while Tier 3/4 material gets concentrated passes instead of being spread thin across cycles it doesn't need. If fewer than 30 days remain before sitting the exam, compress by dropping the latest cycles first (keep Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 intact, since Tier 4's single pass and Tier 1's first derivation both live there) and move straight into forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md's own T-48 block once inside two days of the exam — don't run both documents' schedules over the same final 48 hours at once.

Reading the table as repetition counts rather than a calendar: Tier 0 and Tier 1 each get six passes across the schedule — the most of anything, matching their status as either the single most consistently-tested spec point or the single most consistently-confirmed error pattern on the whole paper. Tier 2's seven sub-sections each get two passes apiece, spread across the six cycles rather than crammed into one. Tier 3's ten sub-sections each get exactly two passes, spread wider (Cycle 1 or 2, then Cycle 5 or 6) since there is less real material per sub-section to revisit. Tier 4's ten items get exactly one pass, in Cycle 1 only, and are not scheduled again inside this document — consistent with the reasoning in §1: repeating a pass against a sub-point with no confirmed question pattern doesn't compound the way it does for a sub-point with a real, repeatable trap to drill. If a Tier 4 item happens to come up in a full timed paper sat later (forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md Block B), that is real new information and worth a targeted recall check then — this schedule simply doesn't pre-allocate repeated cycles to it on the assumption that it will.

For Tier 2 and Tier 3, the exact sub-section assigned to a given cycle is this course's own even distribution of the tier's real membership across the available slots — the tier a sub-section sits in is sourced to the frequency table (§2 above); the specific cycle it lands on within that tier is a scheduling choice, not a further finding. Swap sub-sections between cycles within the same tier freely if a personal weak spot (tracked in forge-error-pattern-tracker.md §3–§5) argues for moving one earlier.

---

#4. The one topic whose tier depends on which document you read

1.3.5.4, business choices / opportunity cost, is the one row in this schedule that needed a judgement call rather than a direct table lookup. WBS11-verified-facts.md itself, and the frequency table built from it, both record this sub-point as confirmed zero across the six-series facts-bank pass [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1]. But forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4.2 independently found real, primary-source-verified evidence not yet folded into that count: October 2024 Q1(c), a 6-mark Analyse question asking directly for two opportunity costs an entrepreneur faced, with a confirmed trap ("wrote about the risks the entrepreneur took… instead of the potential benefits sacrificed" [PEF, Oct 2024, Q1c]) — that guide's own §6 explicitly flags this as "status upgraded by this guide, not yet reflected elsewhere." This schedule follows the more recent, better-informed status: 1.3.5.4 sits in Tier 3 (two real passes) rather than Tier 4 (one pass), because there now is a confirmed question shape and a confirmed trap to drill against, even though the facts bank's own tally hasn't been updated to show it yet. Anyone building a future revision of this schedule from the frequency table alone, without also checking the exam-technique guide's own §4.2 and §6, would place this topic in Tier 4 instead — worth flagging explicitly so that gap doesn't get silently re-introduced.

---

#5. Where this document's scope ends

This schedule covers the run-up to the exam, from Cycle 1 (whenever the student begins ordered revision) to Cycle 6 (30 days after that start, or the point where the compression rule in §3 applies). forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md owns everything inside the final 48 hours, including the one full blind timed paper it recommends sitting in its own Block B (T-30 to T-14) [forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md §3]. Do not sit that blind paper as part of one of this schedule's six cycles — every past question already worked through in a lesson file or the question bank has been seen, so using one inside a numbered cycle here would spend the one genuinely blind test this course has left (January 2025 or October 2024, per the checklist's own provenance note) before the point in the calendar where it does the most diagnostic good.

---

#6. Honesty notes

• Every tier assignment in §2 traces to a real row in signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1, itself built from WBS11-verified-facts.md; the one exception (§4) is explicitly flagged with both of its conflicting sources named, not silently resolved.
• The specific day-intervals and cycle-to-topic assignments in §3 are this course's own scheduling construction, stated as such — not a cited finding from an examiner report, the specification, or a spacing-effect study. Nothing about the shape of a widening-interval schedule is claimed to be Pearson guidance or verified learning-science research in this document; only the tier weighting itself (which topics get more or fewer passes) is grounded in this paper's own real exam-frequency data.
• No likelihood percentage and no grade boundary appears anywhere above. Grade boundaries for this paper were not found in any source checked for this course [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §2] and are not invented here.
• A Tier 4 "one pass only" assignment is not a recommendation to skip that content — the specification still requires it, exactly as signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §3 and forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md §5A both already state. It reflects only that repeated practice against a sub-point with zero confirmed exam-question sightings has no real past pattern to rehearse, so one accurate encoding pass is the honest ceiling this schedule allocates to it.