How often each topic actually gets tested

Seen in 4 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019, Oct 2020, Oct 2021, Jan 2023) — the most consistently tested Algebra & Functions sub-topic on this paper. Every confirmed mark is a B mark with no method credit: only 1 of the 3 fully-mined anchors actually asks for a worded description, the other two ask for exact transformed coordinates read off a sketch.

Seen in 3 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023, Oct 2020, Oct 2021), every single instance a 10-mark composite question — on the one series with a full mark-weight reconstruction, this one question carries more than two-thirds of the paper's entire Trigonometry allocation. Always embedded in a named real-world object (a stage, sign, or badge) and always pairs the sector formulas with the sine/cosine-rule toolkit.

Seen in 3 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019, Oct 2021, Jan 2023) — 3 of 9 series touched overall. Marks are small and method-free (B marks only, reading a period, coordinate or value off an already-drawn figure); on the one series with a full mark-weight reconstruction, this topic's confirmed contribution was just 1 of 75 marks, the smallest single-topic figure there.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Oct 2021, Jan 2023), each time a low-tariff (2–3 mark) opening sub-part of a longer question that pivots into expansion and differentiation. Both confirmed cubics are positive and built from linear factors only; the two anchors test opposite directions of the skill — generating a sketch from factors, and reading a solution set off one already drawn.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023, Jan 2025), each time a short (2–5 mark) step that rewrites a root or reciprocal term as a power before differentiating, then uses the result for a further exact-value step. Both confirmed appearances document the same two traps: an unneeded '+ c' tacked onto the derivative, and the negative- or fractional-power term specifically mishandled.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019, Jan 2023), both using the 'no real roots' case specifically rather than the spec's other two framings. Tariff swings between a short ~4-mark question with the quadratic already given (Jan 2023) and a longer ~7-mark question where a quadratic must first be built from a fractional equation (Jan 2019).

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Oct 2021, Jan 2025) — differentiate, set the result equal to a target, and end up with a quartic that is really a disguised quadratic in x². The two confirmed appearances disagree on whether the domain is restricted: Jan 2025 states 'x > 0' up front and penalises keeping both signs, Oct 2021 does not restrict at all.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023, Jan 2025), both an exponential substitution (p = aˣ); a third, independently verified sighting (Oct 2019 Q8) uses a root substitution (√x) instead — a genuinely different flavour with its own trap set, so the honest total is 'at least 3 confirmed sightings,' not a clean N of 5. The single most-confirmed failure across both flavours is solving the substituted variable and stopping, never converting back to x.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023, Oct 2020) — the thinnest-tested whole strand on this paper (coordinate geometry has only 2 spec sub-points against 12 for algebra and functions). Both confirmed appearances carry a 5-mark tariff, one framed as a proof requiring an explicit closing conclusion, one as a construction identifying which point the diagram actually guarantees a right angle at.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019, Oct 2021) for the specific skill of stating the inequalities defining a region bounded by a line and a quadratic curve on a sketch — narrower than the paper-wide table, which lumps this in with an unrelated reciprocal-inequality question on the same Oct 2021 paper. Both confirmed sightings are worth exactly 3 marks in an identical B1/M1/A1 shape.

Seen in 2 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019, Jan 2023) by this topic's own brief, which broadens the paper-wide table's narrower '1 of 5' by including a curve-meets-curve pairing (Jan 2019 Q11) the table's stricter line-meets-curve definition excludes. Counting every series touched at any depth, the topic was seen in 3 of 7 — and in 3 of its 4 real sightings, it is disguised inside a differently-titled question, not announced as 'solve these equations.'

Not confirmed as its own standalone question in any of the 5 fully-read series — this core mechanical skill instead turns up constantly as an embedded sub-step inside other question types (discriminant, hidden-substitution, simultaneous equations), already counted under those topics. One further sighting outside the 5-series base (Jun 2022 Q5(a)) shows the reverse skill — reconstructing f(x) from a turning point and a root — with candidates naming the right quadratic form but forgetting to solve for the leading multiplier.

The specific two-condition, two-constant structure (integrate f″(x) twice, one gradient fact and one point fact) is confirmed in only 1 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023 Q11(b), 6 marks). A narrower single-integration, single-constant sibling is confirmed twice more (Oct 2021, Jan 2025) but is a genuinely shorter, shallower skill — the honest count for the full two-constant structure specifically stays at 1 of 5, not 3.

Confirmed in only 1 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2019 Q7(a), 3 marks) with a full mark-scheme breakdown; a second sighting (Jun 2022 Q2) is real but recorded only as a one-line note, giving 2 of 9 series touched overall. The one fully-documented trap: candidates reach the correct acute angle and stop, worth 2 of 3 marks rather than 0, never finding the required obtuse angle.

Confirmed in only 1 of 5 fully-read series (Jan 2023 Q3, 5 marks) — a multi-term numerator over a monomial denominator, split into separate power-of-x terms before integrating. The mark scheme credits the integration step even off a wrong split, so the two examiner-documented failure modes are distinct: not recognising the split at all, and trying to integrate the un-split fraction's pieces before dividing.

The thinnest-evidenced topic in this table: a systematic grep of 17 locally-held WMA11 series found only 1 dedicated appearance (Summer 2024 Q2(ii), 3 of 6 marks). Surds show up far more often as an exactness constraint bolted onto a differentiation, discriminant, or hidden-quadratic question's final answer than as their own dedicated question — the one repeatedly confirmed trap, across two separate spec strands, is a correct final surd marked down for no shown intermediate combining step.

A standalone question asking for the limit definition or differentiation 'from first principles' is confirmed in 0 of 5 fully-read series. Every confirmed appearance of f′(x) or f″(x) on this paper treats it as a plain algebraic object produced by the ordinary power rule and put to further work (evaluated, solved, built into a tangent, integrated back up) — never as the thing being defined.