Spaced Repetition Schedule

#WEC14 — Spaced Repetition Schedule (Unit 4: Developments in the Global Economy)

Provenance (2026-09-29). Built from signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 in this same folder — the real, per-spec-point 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 file: globalisation, trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage, terms-of-trade-and-trading-blocs, balance-of-payments-exchange-rates-and-competitiveness, poverty-and-inequality, the-role-of-the-state, growth-and-development), each of which already computes its own series count and mark-tariff pattern from the primary source (research/veridian/WEC14-verified-facts.md). Named traps below are cited to those briefs and, for the 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/wec14.ts was checked directly — it holds exactly one real past question, the June 2021 debt-relief essay — used below only as blind self-test material, not re-explained. No forge-forty-eight-hour- checklist.md exists yet for WEC14 (checked directly in this folder), so §5 states this document's own scope-end honestly rather than dividing a calendar with a companion document that doesn't exist. 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 WEC14's real, uneven distribution of exam coverage across the seven lesson files a student actually revises from, how many times should each be revisited before the exam, and in what order? Nothing below re-teaches content. It does not reproduce:

• the per-spec-point frequency table or the grade-boundaries table — both live in signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md, cited by row below rather than copied wholesale (the grade- boundary table specifically is not used to drive anything below — it measures paper difficulty after the fact, not topic frequency, and this schedule is built from frequency evidence only);
• the tariff-by-tariff technique, the self-mark checklist, or the danger-phrase table — forge-exam-technique-guide.md's job;
• the definitions and KAA/AO4 bank — codex-definitions-and-application-bank.md's job;
• any topic's full citation ledger, mechanism map or worked figures — each codex-deep-dive-*.md and each signal-topic-brief-*.md already does that, per topic, in full;
• a 48-hour pre-exam protocol — no such document exists yet for WEC14; see §5.

What it adds: an actual repetition count per curriculum lesson, built by reading two real signals against each other — raw documented frequency, and how often a topic converts into one of the paper's three 20-mark Section C essays — rather than assuming every lesson deserves the same number of passes. It also states, for the first time in this paper's technique-hub build, a combined frequency and essay count for the one lesson that teaches two genuinely separate spec sub-points (trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage.ts, covering both 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2) — see §4.

---

#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. This schedule works one level up, at the seven curriculum-lesson level a student actually revises from — which means combining two or more sub-section rows per lesson in four of the seven cases (terms-of-trade-and-trading-blocs.ts teaches three sub-points; the-role-of-the-state.ts teaches four; growth-and-development.ts teaches three; trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage.ts teaches two).

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

• Raw documented frequency — how many distinct real series carry at least one confirmed citation anywhere in that lesson's scope, per that lesson's own signal-topic-brief-*.md.
• 20-mark essay conversion — of that lesson's own real citations, how many were the Section C choice-of-2-from-3 essay, rather than a Section A MCQ or a Section B part.

Raw frequency, highest to lowest, per lesson's own topic brief:

Essay conversion — confirmed 20-mark Section C instances, per lesson:

Where the two signals agree, and where they don't. Balance of Payments and Growth and Development sit at the top on both measures at once — highest raw frequency (10 each) and tied for the most confirmed essays (4 each) — the cleanest case for heavy, essay-weighted revision. Terms of Trade and Trading Blocs matches them on essay count (4) and, once its own brief's ninth series is counted, is close behind on raw frequency too — plus it carries the single strongest Section A warning signal in the whole archive (below). Poverty and Inequality also reaches 9 of 14 and 4 essays, but unlike the three lessons above, its essay signal is a single sub-point's entire contribution, not a spread across the lesson — poverty's own half needs a different kind of pass (a low-tariff definition drill) rather than more essay rehearsal it has never actually produced.

The more informative disagreement sits lower down. Trade Theory and Comparative Advantage has a higher raw frequency (6) than Globalisation (4) — but Trade Theory is heavily MCQ-weighted (4 of its 6 real hits are Section A, only 2 are the essay: a 33% conversion rate), while Globalisation, rarer overall, converts to the essay in 2 of its 4 confirmed appearances — a 50% rate, and it has no confirmed Section B citation at all. A schedule built from raw frequency alone would rank Trade Theory above Globalisation; one built from essay-conversion alone would rank them closer together or reverse the order. Both signals matter, so §2 places them in adjacent tiers rather than one clearly above the other.

The sharpest disagreement on the paper belongs to The Role of the State: middling raw frequency (7 of 14, ahead of both Trade Theory and Globalisation) but the lowest essay count of any lesson — one confirmed Section C essay inside the archive, and literally none for its largest sub-point (macro policy). Its real, dominant format is instead the paper's own opening pair — Section B Q7(a)/(b), a national-debt or fiscal-deficit calculation plus a 4-mark definition — confirmed in 4 of its 7 real series [signal-topic-brief-the-role-of-the-state.md §3]. A schedule that counted essays only would badly under-rehearse the single question type this lesson is actually most likely to produce, and most likely to produce as the very first thing written in the exam room.

---

#2. The seven lessons, tiered from both real signals

#Tier 0 — paper-wide mechanics (every cycle, no lesson attached)

Not content traps at all — confirmed marking mechanics of how this paper scores any topic, which is why they earn a standing slot rather than a rotation slot. Full detail in forge-exam-technique-guide.md §4; short quotes only, attributed, below:

• A two-stage chain of reasoning caps KAA at Level 2, confirmed across four series and three different topics — terms of trade (Jan 2021 Q8), aid and development (Jan 2021 Q9), income inequality (Jan 2024 Q8), and again in January 2025's general summary. "X causes Y, so Z happens" stops one stage short of what Level 3 actually credits.
• An essay written in bullet points is capped by the format itself, confirmed directly for January 2025, and stated as applying to Section B's 14-mark part as well as Section C: candidates are told directly to "avoid writing essays in bullet points."
• Section B's evaluation cutoff sits between the 6-mark and 8-mark parts, not between Section B and Section C — confirmed twice, four years apart (Jan 2021, Jan 2025): no evaluation is credited on the 6-mark part at all; it is required from the 8-mark part upward.
• The paper is genuinely time-tight, and Section B is where candidates over-invest: a principal examiner states directly that most candidates were "not actually able to complete the paper in the time available" (January 2025). Every minute over Section B's real budget is stolen from Section C, where the country gate and the informed judgement both live.
• "Positive as KAA, negative as Evaluation" is reversible, not fixed — confirmed on two series four years apart (Jan 2021 Q8, terms of trade; Jun 2025 Q10, public expenditure): the split can run either direction depending on how the candidate structures the argument.
• Solutions are not evaluation, on Section B as well as Section C — confirmed on an 8-mark Section B part (Jan 2021 Q7(d), causes of income inequality): giving a solution instead of answering the question actually set forfeits the evaluation marks outright.
• Copying the extract earns zero analysis, confirmed on both Section B's 8-mark part and the 14-mark part, across five years (Jan 2021 Q7(d); Jan 2025 Q7(d) and Q7(e)) — a fact that would be exactly as true with the source booklet closed is not earning an analysis mark.
• Level 3 evaluation specifically requires a stated, informed judgement, not more evaluation points — confirmed in near-identical wording four years apart (Jan 2021, Jan 2025): a verdict plus the condition it depends on, not a longer list of "on the other hand" sentences.

#Tier 1 — Balance of Payments, Growth and Development, and Terms of Trade/Trading Blocs/Restrictions

Balance of Payments, Exchange Rates and Competitiveness (4.3.3) — 10 of 14, 4 confirmed essays, Section-B-dominant. Seven of its ten real hits are Section B — a real-country currency or BoP- crisis source booklet (Zambia, Turkey, Japan, Pakistan twice, Ghana) pairing a genuine figure with an institution-identification sub-question that is zero-credit, not partial-credit, when reversed: monetary-vs-fiscal (October 2022, the Bank of Japan) and IMF-vs-World-Bank (October 2023) are both confirmed as "unable to access any marks" errors. Its four essays run the same current-account pair from both directions — a deficit essay (Oct 2021) and a surplus essay (Jan 2023) — plus a competitiveness-factors essay (Jun 2022) and a depreciation-causes essay (Oct 2024). A reversed balance-of-trade deficit/surplus definition scored zero on that part in a real series — candidates "simply reversed the definitions."

Growth and Development (4.3.6) — 10 of 14, 4 confirmed essays, MCQ tests classification not definition. Five Section A citations, never a bare definition — always which named model (Harrod-Domar/Lewis, confused in both directions a year apart) or which category a strategy belongs to (market-orientated vs interventionist, zero credit for the wrong box, confirmed word-for- word eighteen months apart at Jan 2024 and Jun 2024). Its four essays are debt relief (Jun 2021 Q9 — this lesson's one real question-bank exemplar), constraints (Jan 2022 Q10, Pakistan HDI 0.60 vs Argentina 0.85), institutions (Jun 2023 Q9), and market-orientated strategies (Jan 2024 Q10, South Sudan, a stacked double gate). Institutions are tested more often embedded inside an unrelated BoP-crisis booklet (three times: Oct 2023, Jan 2024, Jan 2025) than as their own dedicated essay (once) — easy to underweight if only the essay is drilled. Least confirmed: a tourism or primary-industry-development essay (4.3.6.3c) — zero citations across all 14 series checked.

Terms of Trade, Trading Blocs and Restrictions on Free Trade (4.3.2.3–5) — terms of trade alone at least 9 of 14, 4 confirmed essays across the three sub-points, and the single strongest Section A warning signal in the whole archive. The terms-of-trade MCQ is independently named the single weakest-answered Section A question in 5 of 13 examiner reports read — the strongest single finding in this paper's entire evidence base. Restrictions' tariff-diagram-area MCQ is named a weak or the weakest question of its series four separate times (Oct 2020, Oct 2021, Jan 2023, Jan 2025). Its four essays: two terms-of-trade essays (Jan 2021 Q8; Oct 2023 Q8, which carries no country gate at all, unlike almost every other Section C essay on this paper), one trading-blocs essay (Jan 2023 Q8, CPTPP), and one restrictions essay (Oct 2022 Q10, agricultural subsidies and developing-country producers). Every trading-bloc citation anchors to a real, named bloc and country — never a hypothetical one. 4.3.2.4(d), conflicts between blocs and the WTO, is a genuine, actively-searched- for-and-not-found gap — no rehearsal time is allocated to it below, since none of this course's own research has found a matching real citation to rehearse against.

Each of these three lessons gets 6 passes, 3 at the 20-mark tariff — the highest total allocation on the paper, matching the top of both signals.

#Tier 2 — Poverty and Inequality

9 of 14, 4 confirmed essays — but every one of them sits inside inequality's causes sub-point, never poverty's own. Poverty's two confirmed citations are both a 4-mark, no-evaluation "explain the term" part, and one of them is this paper's single sharpest documented failure point: only 6% of candidates scored full marks explaining relative poverty (Jan 2021), the named error being confusion with absolute poverty. Inequality's Lorenz-curve/Gini content is a stable Section A fixture (three MCQs: Oct 2020, Oct 2022, Oct 2023) that tests the direction of a shift, not just static reading — the one documented archive error (Georgia, Oct 2023) was a direction mistake. Its four essays (Jun 2022 Q10, Jun 2023 Q10, Jan 2024 Q8, Oct 2024 Q9) are not all "causes" questions: Jun 2022 Q10 asked for policies to reduce inequality, and a causes-only answer to it "did not attain any marks" — read the command word before assuming causes is wanted.

Five passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — one fewer essay pass than Tier 1, reflecting that this lesson's essay signal, while real, is concentrated in one half of it rather than spread across the whole topic the way Tier 1's three lessons' essays are.

#Tier 3 — Trade Theory and Comparative Advantage, and Globalisation

Trade Theory and Comparative Advantage (4.3.2.1–2) — 6 of 14 combined, MCQ-dominant (4 of 6 hits), only 2 essays (33% conversion). The two hardest-evidenced MCQ failures share one mechanism — reading a comparative-advantage or opportunity-cost data table correctly: "many candidates were unable to correctly deduce from the data" which country held the lower opportunity cost in which good (Oct 2024 Q4), the same failure named in Jan 2022 Q5. Its one confirmed 4.3.2.1 essay (Oct 2021 Q9) reliably earns its KAA content but "struggled to evaluate effectively" — the theory is learned, the weighing of it is not. Its one confirmed 4.3.2.2 essay (Jan 2024 Q9, patterns of world trade) was that series' weakest-scoring Section C option — worth deliberately targeting rather than avoiding for that reason.

Globalisation (4.3.1) — 4 of 14 at this brief's own count, but the higher essay-conversion rate of the two Tier-3 lessons (50%, 2 of 4). No confirmed Section B citation exists for this topic at all. Both essays share the same failure mode in opposite directions: naming causes and describing effects instead (Jan 2022), or drifting into causes on the effects essay (Oct 2022). Both essays' Evaluation bands specifically reward a reversal point against the essay's own claim — reshoring or "peak globalisation" against falling transport costs; the Doha round stalling against trade liberalisation as an unconditional good.

Trade Theory gets five passes, one at the 20-mark tariff, weighted toward MCQ table-reading drill given where 4 of its 6 real hits actually sit. Globalisation gets four passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — fewer total passes, matching its lower raw frequency, but a higher share of them at the essay tariff, matching its higher conversion rate.

#Tier 4 — The Role of the State

7 of 14 deduplicated, but only one confirmed Section C essay inside the archive — the lowest essay count of any lesson on the paper, and zero for its largest sub-point (4.3.5.4, macro policy). Its real, dominant shape is instead the paper's opening Section B pair: 4 of its 7 real series (Oct 2020, Jun 2022, Jan 2024, Jan 2025) use a national-debt or fiscal-deficit figure as the paper's Q7(a) 2-mark calculation, typically paired with a 4-mark "explain what is meant by" part — the single most repeated way this topic enters the paper at all. Three confirmed, named traps recur here specifically: defining the static term instead of analysing the change asked for (Oct 2020 Q7(c), fiscal deficit); percentage vs percentage-point confusion on tax and interest-rate figures, named separately on interest rates (Oct 2020 Q7(d)) and the 45%→47% income-tax MCQ (Jan 2022 Q4); and national debt confused with the current-account deficit (Jun 2022 Q7(b)). One boundary case worth flagging rather than reusing uncritically: the whole-paper frequency table lists an October 2023 IMF/World-Bank citation under this sub-point (4.3.5.4), but that topic's own facts-bank filing places it under 4.3.6.3(d), international institutions — this schedule does not double-drill it here, since Growth and Development's own Tier 1 slot already owns it.

Five passes, only one at the 20-mark tariff (the taxation essay, Jun 2022 Q8 — the only confirmed Section C instance inside the 14-series archive), with the largest share of any lesson's passes given instead to the Q7(a)/(b) opening-calculation drill that this topic's real evidence actually supports.

---

#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 WEC14 itself. If fewer than 30 days remain, compress by dropping the latest cycles first (keep Cycles 1–2 intact, since Tier 1's earliest encoding and Tier 0's own rotation both live there).

Reading this as repetition counts rather than a calendar: Tier 0 gets one item, or a small cluster, every cycle, closing with a full rapid-fire pass through all eight items at Cycle 6. Balance of Payments, Growth and Development, and Terms of Trade/Trading Blocs/Restrictions each get six passes, three at the 20-mark tariff — the highest total allocation on the paper, matching their position at the top of both real signals. Poverty and Inequality gets five passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — one essay pass fewer than Tier 1, because its real essay signal, while just as large in count (4), sits entirely inside inequality rather than spread across the lesson. Trade Theory and Comparative Advantage gets five passes, one at the 20-mark tariff, weighted toward the MCQ table-reading drill that 4 of its 6 real hits actually call for. Globalisation gets four passes, two at the 20-mark tariff — fewer total passes than Trade Theory, matching its lower raw frequency, but a higher share of them at the essay tariff, matching its higher per-appearance essay-conversion rate. The Role of the State gets five passes, only one at the 20-mark tariff — the lowest essay allocation of any lesson, with the largest share of its passes instead given to the Q7(a)/(b) opening-calculation drill its real evidence overwhelmingly supports.

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 lesson's two real spec points still share a single schedule

trade-theory-and-comparative-advantage.ts teaches two genuinely separate spec sub-points — 4.3.2.1 (specialisation and comparative advantage) and 4.3.2.2 (patterns of world trade) — as one lesson file. Neither signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md nor signal-topic-brief-trade-theory-and-comparative- advantage.md (whose own stated scope is "spec 4.3.2.1" only) states a combined count for what a student actually revises as one lesson. Doing that arithmetic directly: 4.3.2.1's 5 confirmed series (Oct 2020, Jan 2022, Oct 2021, Oct 2024, Jan 2025) and 4.3.2.2's 1 confirmed series (Jan 2024) share no series in common, so the lesson's real combined frequency is 6 of 14, not the 5 of 14 that reading the 4.3.2.1 brief alone would suggest — and the lesson's real combined essay count is 2, not 1, once Jan 2024 Q9's patterns-of-trade essay is counted alongside Oct 2021 Q9's specialisation essay.

Unlike WBS14's own protectionism/trading-blocs split (a different course, a genuinely opposite tariff pattern that forced two separate tiers), this lesson's two sub-points do not pull in opposite directions: both are MCQ-dominant with one confirmed essay each, so one shared tier and one shared five-pass allocation (§2, §3) fits the real evidence rather than under- or over-stating it. The finding worth carrying forward is narrower and still real: a future editor reading only the existing 4.3.2.1-scoped brief would under-count this lesson's true frequency and essay signal by one series and one essay each — worth flagging so that doesn't happen silently.

---

#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). No forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md exists yet for WEC14 — checked directly in this folder before writing this section — so there is no companion document to hand off the final 48 hours to, unlike this course's WBS14 build. Until one exists, treat this schedule's own Cycle 6 (and the full Tier 0 rapid-fire checklist it carries) as the last scheduled instrument before the exam itself, and do not assume a shorter final-48-hours protocol is already covered elsewhere in this paper's technique-hub.

---

#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.
• §1's and §4's combined frequency/essay counts (Trade Theory and Comparative Advantage's "6 of 14" and "2 essays") are this document's own synthesis, computed by combining two existing briefs' own per-sub-point figures rather than copied from either on its own — the underlying series and question citations are unchanged; only the combination at lesson level is new here.
• Three real discrepancies between existing WEC14 documents are flagged above rather than silently resolved: Globalisation's "4 of 14" (this brief's own count) vs "5 of 14" (the whole-paper table); Balance of Payments' tenth counted series (this brief counts January 2023; the whole-paper table counts January 2024 instead, on different underlying evidence, though both land on "10 of 14"); and the October 2023 IMF/World-Bank citation's ambiguous filing under 4.3.5.4 vs 4.3.6.3(d), which this schedule resolves by not double-drilling it in both lessons' tiers.
• 4.3.2.4(d) (conflicts between trading blocs and the WTO) is a genuine, actively-searched-for-and- not-found gap, not an oversight — no rehearsal pass above is built around it, per the hard rule against manufacturing coverage the real evidence doesn't support.
• 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 lesson 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 series checked" — never as a chance of recurrence.
• This paper's evidence base, while fuller than some others in this course (14 series read in full, 13 with a matching examiner report), still has genuine gaps this document inherits rather than restates as new: June 2021 has no examiner report in the archive; several June 2025/Summer 2025 citations sit outside the main 14-series count and were checked only via narrower, single-question pulls; and four series (June 2022, January 2023, October 2024 for Growth and Development specifically) were not confirmed to carry a citation for that lesson in this pass — an absence in what has been found, not a claim that the topic was actually absent from those papers.

---

#Sources

content/veridian/technique-hub/wec14/signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 (the per-spec-point frequency table this schedule's tiers are built from, row by row). The seven signal-topic-brief-*.md documents in this same folder (per-lesson series counts, mark-tariff patterns, named traps and real cases — cited individually throughout §1–§4). content/veridian/technique-hub/wec14/ forge-exam-technique-guide.md §1–§4 (the paper's 6/34/40 structure, the choice-of-2-from-3 Section C format, and the eight paper-wide mechanics behind Tier 0). content/veridian/curriculum/wec14/ paper-anatomy.ts and the seven lesson files themselves (read for their own SPEC_REF constants, to confirm exactly which spec sub-points each lesson teaches — the basis for §1's combined counts and §4's finding). content/veridian/question-bank/wec14.ts (the one real worked question — June 2021's debt-relief essay — used above as blind self-test material). Underlying all of the above, research/veridian/WEC14-verified-facts.md, this course's own primary, provenance-checked source for every real citation these documents draw on.