Spaced Repetition Schedule

#WBS14 — Spaced Repetition Schedule (Unit 4: Global Business)

Provenance (2026-09-29). Built from signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 in this same folder — the real, sub-section-level topic-frequency table this schedule's tiering is derived from, row by row — cross-checked against all seven signal-topic-brief-*.md documents in this same folder (one per curriculum lesson: globalisation-and-growing-economies, factors-driving-globalisation, protectionism-and-trading-blocs, assessing-global-markets-and-locations, global-expansion-mergers-and-uncertainty, global-marketing, mncs-impact-ethics-and-control), each of which already computes its own topic-level series count and real mark-tariff pattern from the raw facts bank (research/veridian/WBS14-verified-facts.md). Named traps below are cited to those briefs and, for the four genuinely paper-wide ones, to forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4 (which states them once, for the whole paper, rather than owned by any single topic). content/veridian/question-bank/ wbs14.ts was checked directly for its four real worked questions (EU fishing subsidies, both protectionism-impact-on-global-businesses essays, and the Halo Top niche-4Ps essay) — used below only as blind self-test material, not re-explained. forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md was also read in full so the two documents divide the calendar rather than overlap — see §5. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel. No likelihood percentage and no grade boundary appears anywhere below — every frequency claim is stated as "seen in N of M series checked," per signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md's own stated standard. Every repetition count and 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.

---

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

This document answers one question: given WBS14's real, uneven distribution of exam coverage across its seven curriculum topics, 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 sub-section-level frequency table itself, or the grade-boundary note — both live in signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md, cited by row below rather than copied wholesale;
• the tariff-by-tariff technique, the self-mark checklist, or the paper-wide danger-phrase table — forge-exam-technique-guide.md's job;
• the definitions and application drills — codex-definitions-and-application-bank.md's job;
• any topic's full real-question catalogue, mechanism map or worked figures — each codex-deep-dive-*.md and each signal-topic-brief-*.md already does that, per topic, in full;
• the 48-hour pre-exam protocol — forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md's job entirely; see §5 for exactly where this document's scope ends and that one's begins.

What it adds: an actual repetition count per curriculum topic, built by reading two real signals against each other — overall documented frequency, and how often a topic converts into one of the paper's two 20-mark essays — rather than assuming every topic deserves the same number of passes, or that a high overall count automatically means heavy essay rehearsal. That combination is the one thing no other WBS14 technique-hub document does.

---

#1. Two real signals, and why they don't always point the same way

signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 counts real documented questions by spec sub-section (4.3.1.1–4.3.4.3), not by the seven curriculum topics this course actually teaches from. This schedule works one level up — by topic, matching the seven lesson files a student actually revises from — which means combining two or three sub-section rows per topic, except in one case (4.3.1.4–5) where this schedule deliberately keeps two sub-sections taught inside a single lesson file apart, because their real exam records point in opposite directions (see §4).

At topic level, two independent signals are worth reading side by side rather than collapsed into one number:

• Overall documented frequency — how many distinct real series carry at least one confirmed question anywhere in that topic, per that topic's own signal-topic-brief-*.md.
• 20-mark essay conversion — of that topic's own real question instances, how many were the Section B (Q2) or Section C (Q3) headline essay, rather than a Section A extract sub-question.

Across this paper's whole evidence base — 5 series read in full (Oct 2021, Jun 2022, Jan 2023, Oct 2023, Jan 2024) plus 7 more confirmed later via single-question targeted pulls (Oct 2024, Jun 2026, Jan 2026, Oct 2025, Oct 2022, Jan 2022, Jun 2023), 12 distinct series in total — these two signals genuinely disagree, and the disagreement is itself useful information, not noise to average away.

Assessing Global Markets and Locations has the single highest raw frequency of any topic: at least one of its three sub-points has been tested in all 5 systematic series plus 2 further targeted series — 7 distinct series total [signal-topic-brief-assessing-global-markets-and-locations.md §1]. But its 7 real hits split unevenly by tariff: 3 are the 20-mark essay, 3 are a 12-mark Assess, 1 an 8-mark Discuss — a broad, multi-tariff topic rather than an essay-only one.

MNCs — Impact, Ethics and Control sits at the opposite extreme on the same measure that matters most for a repetition schedule: it has a lower raw frequency (4 of 5 systematic series, no targeted additions) but every single one of its four real citations is a 20-mark Evaluate essay — the only topic on this paper with a 100% essay-conversion rate [signal-topic-brief-mncs-impact-ethics-and-control.md "Mark-tariff pattern"]. Global Marketing sits close behind it: 5 distinct real series, 4 of which are a 20-mark essay — an 80% conversion rate, and, tied with MNCs, the joint-highest raw count of 20-mark citations (4 each) of any topic on the paper [signal-topic-brief-global-marketing.md §2]. A schedule built from raw frequency alone would rank Assessing Global Markets well above both; a schedule built from essay-conversion alone would rank MNCs and Global Marketing well above it. §2 and §3 build this distinction in explicitly rather than averaging it away.

One further whole-paper pattern, computed here for the first time from figures each individual brief already states but never combines: 13 real 20-mark essay instances have been found across this paper's whole evidence base, and every single one of them sits inside just four of the seven topics — Assessing Global Markets (3), Global Marketing (4), MNCs (4) and Protectionism specifically, not Trading Blocs (2). The other three topics — Globalisation and Growing Economies, Factors Driving Globalisation, and Global Expansion/Mergers/Uncertainty, plus Trading Blocs on its own — have zero confirmed 20-mark essay hit anywhere in the evidence checked so far. Of the 13, 6 sat in Section B (Q2) and 7 in Section C (Q3) — a near-even split, unlike the lopsided Section-B skew this course's own WBS13 schedule found for that paper. Stated as what it is, a 13-instance count is too thin to build a hard rule on, but it is worth knowing, going in, that roughly half of this paper's topics have never yet produced its headline essay at all, while the other half supply all of it.

---

#2. The seven topics, tiered from both real signals — and one lesson split into two schedules

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

Not spec content at all — technique failures confirmed independently of which topic the extract draws on, which is why these earn a standing slot rather than a rotation slot. Full mechanism in forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4, not re-derived here:

• The Section A opener's command word changes between series — Calculate in Oct 2021/Jan 2023, Construct in Jan 2024/Oct 2024 — and answering in the wrong mode (prose reasoning on a Construct question, or an unrequested diagram on a Calculate one) forfeits the Knowledge mark regardless of correct economics.
• The same mark-loss shape recurs on both opener variants: a missing currency symbol or wrong decimal-place count on Calculate (confirmed, Jun 2022's own NB rule); a missing or imprecisely worded axis label on Construct (confirmed, Oct 2024's own dedicated labelling mark). Same underlying skill — state the answer in the exact form the mark scheme checks for — confirmed on two different questions in two different series.
• The recurring examiner checklist, independently repeated close to verbatim across three series (Jun 2022, Oct 2023, Jan 2024): answer what was actually set; watch the command word, especially Assess/Evaluate being ignored; use real named examples, not generic or copied-out evidence; watch timing; add a real conclusion to the longer answers. Run this as a final two-minute scan before submitting any Discuss/Assess/Evaluate answer, not as a study topic.
• BMW/Jaguar's "inelastic PED protects against tariffs" line is real and twice-credited (Jan 2022, Jun 2023) but not a universal shield — it covers the export-demand side only, not the separate, real input-cost/retaliation channel a strong essay still needs to test.

Because these attach to whichever topic actually appears on the day, they earn a place in every cycle in §3, not a rotation slot.

#Tier 1 — Assessing Global Markets and Locations (4.3.2.1–3)

Seen in 7 distinct series — the single highest raw frequency of any WBS14 topic (5 of 5 systematic series carry at least one hit, plus 2 further targeted confirmations: Oct 2022 and Oct 2025, both Porter's five forces). Its 7 real hits split across three tariffs: 3 at 20-mark Evaluate (push/pull, Jun 2022 Q3; Porter's five forces twice, on Glovo/Africa and a pet-food business, Oct 2022 and Oct 2025); 3 at 12-mark Assess (political stability, Jan 2023; ease of doing business, Oct 2021; return on investment, Oct 2023 — confirmed as that series' worse-answered of its two 12-mark questions); 1 at 8-mark Discuss (PLC extension, Jan 2024) [signal-topic-brief-assessing-global-markets-and-locations.md §1–2]. Two named traps recur across the confirmed set: "listed, not judged" — Jun 2022's push/pull report describes candidates "producing lists...without developing or analysing them," and Oct 2023's ROI report records candidates who understood the term but "dismissed it without development," the same failure at two different tariffs; and a named real counter-example outweighing the obvious factor — Jan 2023 uses JLR/Slovakia and Nissan/Sunderland against political stability, Oct 2021 uses Vietnam's own flagged weaknesses against its ease-of-doing-business ranking. Both confirmed Porter's-five-forces essays independently close on the identical resolution — the model is only "a guide" needing real market-research supplementation — worded almost identically across two different series and businesses [signal-topic-brief-assessing-global-markets-and-locations.md §3].

Six passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — the highest total pass allocation on this paper, matching its highest raw frequency, pointed at both its essay presence and its three distinct 12-mark Assess factors.

#Tier 2 — Global Marketing (4.3.3.1–3) and MNCs — Impact, Ethics and Control (4.3.4), tied on real essay count

Global Marketing — 5 distinct series, 4 of 5 real anchors a 20-mark essay (80%). Three of those four sit at Section B Q2 (marketing approaches, Nike/NikeUnite vs Aldi, Jun 2022; niche-market benefit, gender-neutral skincare and halal cosmetics, Oct 2024; niche 4Ps adaptation, Halo Top vs Ben & Jerry's/ Häagen-Dazs/Magnum, Oct 2022), with the fourth at Section C Q3 (Porter's strategic matrix, Vietnamese cosmetics entry, Oct 2023) [signal-topic-brief-global-marketing.md §1–2]. The single highest-value trap in this topic's own evidence, confirmed by direct Principal Examiner's Report quotation: "a significant number of candidates" "knew little, or nothing, about Porter's matrix" and "confused it with Porter's five forces" — two different tools, two different spec points, and this course's own forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md §1 independently flags it as the single highest-value trap on the whole paper, not just this topic. A second, cross-cutting pattern this brief names for the first time: three different sub-points (marketing approaches, cultural/social factors, niche 4Ps) each independently reward the same underlying move — a judgement tied to the specific product and market in front of you, not a fixed "adapt vs. standardise" answer [signal-topic-brief-global-marketing.md §3].

MNCs — 4 distinct series, and every one of its four real citations is a 20-mark Evaluate — the only 100%-essay topic on this paper. An even Section B/C split: ethics twice (IKEA's sustainability record, Oct 2021; an unnamed company, Oct 2023), impact once (TotalEnergies, local-economy scale, Jan 2024), control once (Shell/Break Free From Plastics/Canada Goose/IKEA/Glencore, Jan 2023) [signal-topic-brief-mncs-impact-ethics-and-control.md "Frequency," "Mark-tariff pattern"]. IKEA is the only company named twice across this topic's evidence, for two structurally different reasons — its own ethics record, and separately, its self-regulation example under controlling MNCs — worth knowing in both roles rather than one. One real, examiner-confirmed trap: the Jan 2024 impact question named the local economy specifically, but candidates wrote generically about the national economy, credited only where explicitly tied back down to local scale.

Global Marketing gets five passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — matching its higher raw frequency (5 series) and its 80% essay rate. MNCs gets four passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — a lower raw frequency but an even higher essay share (100%), so nearly all of its allocation sits at the essay tariff rather than spread across a short-answer drill this topic has never actually produced.

#Tier 3 — Protectionism (4.3.1.4) alone

0 of 5 systematic series, but 6 real citations confirmed across 5 separate targeted-pull series once anyone looked past the original five — the clearest illustration on this whole paper of the "0 of 5 doesn't mean untested" pattern signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md itself flags. It also has the widest tariff spread of any single topic: a front-loaded Section A pair (4-mark Construct + 4-mark Explain, both on Turkey's 130% wheat tariff, Oct 2024), two single-mechanism 8-mark Discuss questions (EU fishing subsidies, $2bn/2018, Oct 2022; Indonesia corn/sugar/salt quotas, Jun 2026), and 2 of the paper's 13 real 20-mark essays (both "impact of protectionism on global businesses," Jan 2022 and Jun 2023) — with no confirmed hit anywhere at the 12-mark Assess tariff, a genuine, disclosed gap, not an oversight [signal-topic-brief-protectionism-and-trading-blocs.md "Frequency," "Mark-tariff pattern"]. Both real essays independently credit the identical BMW/Jaguar PED-inelastic line (Tier 0 above); the Jun 2023 version additionally credits a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses and names China directly on subsidies. All three real cases cluster on food and raw-material commodities — wheat, corn/sugar/salt, fish — never manufactured or tech goods.

Five passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — a high total reflecting its real 6-citation count (behind only Assessing Global Markets' 7), with a dedicated pass for the Turkey-wheat Construct/Explain pair and another for the BMW/Jaguar dual-channel drill (export-PED side kept separate from the import-cost retaliation side — Tier 0's fourth trap, applied here at full length).

#Tier 4 — Trading Blocs (4.3.1.5) and Factors Driving Globalisation (4.3.1.3), both back-half-of-Section-A only, zero essay

Trading Blocs — seen in 2 of 5 systematic series (Jun 2022, Jan 2023), and both real citations sit at the identical Q1(e) 12-mark Assess slot — the narrowest tariff range of any topic on the paper. ASEAN, via Thailand/Vietnam, is the only spec-named bloc (of EU, ASEAN, NAFTA) to anchor a fully dedicated question in either pull; AfCFTA appears only as a supporting strand inside the Jan 2023 factors-driving-globalisation question, not as its own question [signal-topic-brief-protectionism-and-trading-blocs.md "Recurring context/angle"]. Named trap: the customs-union/free-trade-area distinction, and EU/NAFTA specifically remain unconfirmed as the central case in any pull checked.

Factors Driving Globalisation — 4 real citations across 3 distinct series (Oct 2021, twice, and Jan 2023 within the systematic pull; Jan 2026 via one further targeted pull), always a discursive tariff — 3 of 4 a 12-mark Assess, 1 an 8-mark Discuss, never a quantitative opener and never a 20-mark essay [signal-topic-brief-factors-driving-globalisation.md "Frequency," "Mark-tariff pattern"]. Three of the four citations use a Vietnam- or Senegal-style single-economy extract; the fourth (Jan 2026) breaks that pattern entirely as a free-standing WTO question with no extract at all — the only sub-item this evidence base treats as deliberately two-sided in the mark scheme itself (Jan 2023 credits only the positive; Jan 2026 adds a genuine limiting side, the Doha round's collapse and the WTO's lack of enforcement power).

Trading Blocs gets three passes, matching its narrow 2-series signal. Factors Driving Globalisation gets four passes, matching its slightly higher 3-series/4-citation signal, with one pass dedicated to the WTO's own two-sided argument specifically rather than folded into a general Assess drill.

#Tier 5 — Globalisation and Growing Economies (4.3.1.1–2) and Global Expansion, Mergers and Uncertainty (4.3.2.4–5)

Growing Economies — 3 of 5 systematic series (Oct 2021, Jun 2022, Jan 2023), no targeted additions, zero confirmed 20-mark essay. Jun 2022 is this topic's own standout: four consecutive Section A sub-questions (Q1a–d) all sit inside this single lesson's two spec items, an unusually dense concentration for one series [signal-topic-brief-globalisation-and-growing-economies.md §1]. Named trap, confirmed by direct examiner-report wording: "employment patterns" is widely misread as employment totals rather than the sectoral shift the question actually asks about. A second, recurring pattern: growth's benefits need a real, named counter-argument to reach top band — Jun 2022's own indicative content credits Haier, Lenovo, Tata and Infosys as genuine global rivals, plus the real figure that developing economies reached 44.3% of global goods-and-services exports by 2019, not a generic "it depends."

Global Expansion, Mergers and Uncertainty — 3 confirmed real citations across the 6 series checked for this topic (Oct 2023, Jan 2024 within the systematic pull; Oct 2025 via one targeted pull), zero confirmed 20-mark essay, and 12-mark Assess dominates (2 of 3) over 8-mark Discuss (1 of 3) [signal-topic-brief-global-expansion-mergers-and-uncertainty.md "Frequency, stated honestly"]. All three citations share one structural move: a real benefit-or-cost mechanism weighed against a real, named balancing factor inside the same case — economies of scale against the combined firm still being smaller than the market leader (HBO/Discovery+ vs Netflix, Oct 2023); a depreciating currency against price elasticity and other country-assessment factors (Kenya, Jan 2024); rising wage costs against government responses and continued FDI pull (Ireland's tech sector, Oct 2025). Named trap, confirmed directly by the Jan 2024 examiner report: exchange-rate exposure runs in opposite directions depending on whether the business is entering a market to sell or to produce — checking that distinction first is the real differentiator.

Growing Economies gets four passes, reflecting its 3-series/7-citation density (mostly from that one concentrated Jun 2022 series). Global Expansion gets three passes, the fewest of any topic, matching its narrowest real citation count (3) — both topics get no dedicated essay-rehearsal slot, since neither has ever produced this paper's headline essay in the evidence checked.

---

#3. The six-cycle schedule

The cycles below use the same widening-gap construction as this course's other spaced-repetition documents (0, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30 days from the first cycle) — this course's own scheduling shape, not a cited spacing-effect study, reused here for consistency across papers rather than as a factual claim about WBS14 itself. If fewer than 30 days remain, compress by dropping the latest cycles first (keep Cycles 1–2 intact, since Tier 3's earliest passes and Tier 1's first encoding both live there) and move into forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md's own T-48 block once inside two days of the exam — don't run both schedules over the same final 48 hours at once.

Reading this as repetition counts rather than a calendar: Tier 0 gets six passes, one every cycle, matching its status as this paper's most consistently-documented failure family, present regardless of which topic the exam actually draws on. Assessing Global Markets gets six passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — the highest total allocation on the paper, matching its highest raw frequency (7 distinct series) and real presence across three tariffs. Global Marketing gets five passes, three at the 20-mark tariff, and MNCs gets four passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — the two topics tied on raw 20-mark citation count (4 each), with MNCs' allocation skewed even harder toward the essay tariff because literally 100% of its real hits have been the headline essay, versus Marketing's 80%. Protectionism gets five passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — the third-highest total, reflecting its real 6-citation count and its unusually wide tariff spread, despite scoring zero in the original 5-series systematic pull. Trading Blocs gets three passes and Factors Driving Globalisation gets four, neither with an essay slot — matching their real, narrow, back-half-of-Section-A-only tariff profile. Growing Economies gets four passes and Global Expansion gets three, also with no essay slot — the two lowest-signal topics on the measure that matters most for a repetition schedule, despite Growing Economies' one dense Jun 2022 series.

For every tier, the exact cycle a given pass lands on is this course's own even distribution of that tier's real pass count across the six available cycles — the pass count itself is sourced to the frequency and conversion-rate evidence above; which cycle it lands on within that count is a scheduling choice, not a further finding. Swap passes between cycles freely if a personal weak spot argues for moving one earlier.

---

#4. Why one curriculum lesson became two different schedules

protectionism-and-trading-blocs.ts teaches spec 4.3.1.4 (protectionism) and 4.3.1.5 (trading blocs) as one lesson file, and this schedule treats them as two separate tiers rather than one, because their real exam records point in opposite directions on both signals that matter for a repetition schedule.

Read at the combined lesson level, the two sub-sections together have been tested in 7 distinct real series (Trading Blocs' 2 — Jun 2022, Jan 2023 — plus Protectionism's 5 — Oct 2022, Oct 2024, Jun 2026, Jan 2022, Jun 2023 — with zero overlapping series between them, a direct arithmetic check, not a claim borrowed from either brief on its own). That ties this combined lesson with Assessing Global Markets and Locations for the single highest raw frequency of any topic on the paper. A schedule built from that one combined number alone would treat this lesson as tied for the single most revision-worthy topic on the whole paper.

But the two halves behave nothing alike once tariff is read in. Trading Blocs has never once produced anything but a 12-mark Assess in the 7 series checked for this lesson — no quantitative opener, no short Explain, no 20-mark essay, in either of its two real citations [signal-topic-brief-protectionism-and-trading-blocs.md "Mark-tariff pattern"]. Protectionism has gone the opposite way, spanning nearly the entire mark range instead: a 4-mark Construct, a 4-mark Explain, two separate 8-mark Discuss questions, and two of the paper's 13 real 20-mark essays — the highest absolute essay count of any single sub-section on this paper bar none. Collapsing these two into one "4.3.1.4–5" tier would either under-schedule essay rehearsal for Trading Blocs (which has never needed it and shouldn't borrow a 20-mark slot it has no real evidence for) or under-schedule the front-loaded Section A pair and the wide Discuss/Evaluate spread that Protectionism's own record actually shows. Splitting them, exactly the way signal-topic-brief-protectionism-and-trading-blocs.md itself keeps the two sub-sections' frequency and tariff data visibly separate rather than blended, is the only way to give each half a schedule its own real evidence actually supports. A future editor rebuilding this schedule from the combined 7-series figure alone, without reading each sub-section's own tariff pattern, would likely build one schedule where two are needed — worth flagging so that doesn't silently happen.

---

#5. Where this document's scope ends

This schedule covers the run-up to the exam, from Cycle 1 (whenever ordered revision begins) 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 its own T-48-to-T-24 re-read sequence and its later timed-practice self-test block. Do not treat either of those as one of this schedule's own six cycles — they are that document's own, later instruments, and running both schedules over the same final two days would double-book the same window rather than dividing it.

---

#6. Honesty notes

• Every tier assignment and every named trap in §2 traces to a real, stated figure in one of the seven signal-topic-brief-*.md documents, signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1, or a specific, cited passage in forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4. The one genuine structural tension in this schedule — one curriculum lesson split into two tiers with opposite tariff behaviour — is flagged explicitly in §4, not silently resolved.
• The whole-paper 13-instance essay tally and its 6/7 Section-B/C split in §1 is this document's own synthesis, computed by combining the per-topic 20-mark counts each individual brief already states, not copied from any single existing document. It is stated as a count of 13 real instances across 4 of 7 topics, not a percentage or a predictive claim, and is explicitly flagged as a small base.
• Factors Driving Globalisation's own topic brief states "seen in 3 of 5 series checked" but names only two systematic-pull series (October 2021 and January 2023) as the source of that count — this document did not silently repeat the "3 of 5" framing where it could not independently reconcile it, and instead reports the unambiguous figures both that brief and this document can both support: 4 real citations across 3 distinct series (Oct 2021, Jan 2023, plus the Jan 2026 targeted pull). This is a real inconsistency spotted while cross-checking sources for this document, not a correction made silently, and it should be checked against the underlying facts bank by a future editor rather than assumed resolved here.
• The specific day-intervals and cycle-to-pass 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. Only the pass count per tier and per named trap is grounded in this paper's own real exam-frequency and essay-conversion data; the calendar shape around it is not claimed as Pearson guidance or verified learning-science research.
• No likelihood percentage and no grade boundary appears anywhere above. Frequency is stated throughout exactly the way signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md itself states it — as "seen in N of M/distinct series checked" — never as a chance of recurrence, and this document does not derive a revision priority from a grade boundary, since a boundary measures paper difficulty after the fact, not topic frequency.
• This paper's whole evidence base is thinner than most others in this course: only 5 of the roughly 15 series held since first assessment (June 2020) were read in full, and most of the remaining 7 cited series are single-question targeted pulls rather than full papers — a caveat this document inherits directly from signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md and paper-anatomy.ts rather than restating as a new finding.

---

#Sources

content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs14/signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 (the sub-section frequency table this schedule's tiers are built from, row by row). The seven signal-topic-brief-*.md documents in this same folder (per-topic series counts, mark-tariff patterns, named traps and real cases — cited individually throughout §2). content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs14/ forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4 (the paper-wide command-word and mark-loss traps behind Tier 0) and content/veridian/curriculum/wbs14/paper-anatomy.ts (the confirmed 4+4+8+12+12=40 Section A structure and the 64-of-80-marks arithmetic behind why Q1(d)/Q1(e)/Q2/Q3 anchor this schedule's essay-tariff passes). content/veridian/question-bank/wbs14.ts (the four real worked questions used above as blind self-test material: EU fishing subsidies, the two protectionism-impact essays, and the Halo Top niche-4Ps essay). content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs14/forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md (read in full to keep §5's scope boundary accurate). Underlying all of the above, research/veridian/WBS14-verified-facts.md, this course's own primary, provenance-checked source for every real citation these documents draw on.