Topic Brief: Assessing Global Markets and Locations

Compiled 2026-09-28. Read in full for this document: research/veridian/WBS14-verified-facts.md (spec 4.3.2.1–4.3.2.3 sections, the lesson-audit log, and the "Topics with enough verified material" ranking); codex-deep-dive-assessing-global-markets-and-locations.md and signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md in this same folder (to confirm this document doesn't restate either); content/veridian/question-bank/wbs14.ts (no entries tagged to this topic). No new primary-source PDF was fetched for this document — every citation below is inherited from the verified-facts file's own independently re-fetched and pdftotext-cross-checked pulls; see that file for the fetch method behind each one.

#WBS14 SIGNAL — Topic Master Brief: Assessing Global Markets and Locations

#What this is, and isn't

This topic is spec 4.3.2, items 1–3 — conditions that prompt trade, assessment of a country as a market, assessment of a country as a production location — the same scope as assessing-global-markets-and-locations.ts. It does not cover mergers (4.3.2.4) or exchange rates/skill shortages (4.3.2.5), which belong to a different lesson.

The CODEX deep-dive for this topic already gives the full factor-by-factor model map and an angle-by-angle question list; the SIGNAL frequency-and-boundaries document already gives a frequency count split across the three spec sub-points separately. This document does neither again. It adds three things: a single combined topic-level frequency figure (the other two documents count 4.3.2.1, .2 and .3 separately and never sum them), the recurring cross-series pattern in how this topic is actually examined, and a short exam-day "what to expect" summary.

#1. Every real series that has tested this topic

Combining all three sub-points, at least one has been tested in every one of the 5 series this course has read in full: October 2021, June 2022, January 2023, October 2023, January 2024. Two further series were confirmed later via single-question targeted fetches, not a full re-read — real, but kept separate from that 5-series count by this course's own convention.

So: seen in 5 of 5 series checked at the systematic-sample level, plus 2 further series confirmed by targeted fetch — 7 distinct real series in total to date, none extrapolated beyond what the verified-facts file actually cites.

#2. The real mark-tariff pattern

Each sub-point has, so far, only ever appeared at one tariff:

• 20-mark Evaluate — the two "weigh a whole analytical choice" sub-points: push vs. pull (once), and Porter's five forces (twice, two different businesses). Both real hits sit in Section B/C.
• 12-mark Assess — the three production-location factors so far confirmed (political stability, ease of doing business, return on investment), each a single-factor Section A(d)/(e) question.
• 8-mark Discuss — PLC extension, once, Section A(c).

No confirmed hit yet at 4-mark or MCQ tariff for this topic specifically. Most of this topic's other named factors (disposable income, market-side infrastructure, exchange rates as a market factor, off-shoring/outsourcing, and most of the nine production-location factors bar the three above) have no standalone past-paper anchor in the sample checked — see the CODEX deep-dive's own factor table for that gap stated factor-by-factor rather than repeated here.

#3. Recurring angle across series

Three real patterns repeat across otherwise-different anchors, not invented for this document:

• "Listed, not judged" is the recurring failure mode. June 2022's push/pull examiner report describes candidates "producing lists...without developing or analysing them." October 2023's ROI report: candidates who understood the term "dismissed it without development." Same failure, two different sub-points, two different tariffs.
• "A named real counter-example outweighs the obvious factor" is the recurring evaluative move the mark scheme itself rewards on both confirmed production-location Assess questions: Jan 2023 uses JLR/Slovakia and Nissan/Sunderland to show other factors outweighing political stability; Oct 2021 uses Vietnam's own flagged supply-chain and workforce weaknesses to show the same against its ease-of-doing-business ranking.
• Both confirmed Porter's five forces essays close on the identical resolution: five forces is only "a guide" that "needs to be supplemented" by real market research — worded almost identically in the pet-food and Glovo mark schemes despite being two different series and businesses. In the Glovo case, the named gaps (consumer income, political stability, infrastructure, ease of doing business) are exactly this topic's own other factor list.

#4. If this topic appears: what to expect

A 20-mark essay naming Porter's five forces or push/pull demands a stated judgement, not a list — and if it's five forces, the strongest close ties the model's limitation back to the plain market/location factor list (income, stability, infrastructure, ease of doing business) rather than a generic "models are imperfect" line. A 12-mark Assess on a single production-location factor rewards a named real counter-example that outweighs it, not just balanced description. Treat "return on investment" as a qualitative judgement, not the investment-appraisal calculation technique. None of this predicts which sub-point recurs next — it describes what past mark schemes have actually credited.

#Sources

research/veridian/WBS14-verified-facts.md — spec 4.3.2.1–4.3.2.3 sections and lesson-audit log. Publication Codes: WBS14_01_2510_MS (October 2025 Q2), WBS14_01_2210_MS (October 2022 Q3), WBS14_01_2301 (January 2023 Q1d). October 2021 Q1d and October 2023 Q1e are cited by series/question identifier only, as the verified-facts file itself gives them.