Technique Masterclasses

Mechanics 1

Spaced Repetition Schedule

Provenance: compiled 2026-09-29. Built primarily from signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 of this same folder (the two fully mark-mapped series' spec-by-spec table, which is where "every topic except modelling scored 2 of 2" comes from) and its "cross-series signal" section (the named-trap counts below the table). Because that document's own §1 states plainly that its "seen in N of 2" finding is real but narrow, and does not build a full per-question spec-tag across the wider 17-series archive, this schedule's actual tiering leans more heavily on the nine signal-topic-brief-*.md files in this same folder — one per curriculum lesson — each of which supplies a topic-specific "of 17" frequency count, a mark-tariff pattern, and a named-trap count finer than signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md's own table gives on its own; this schedule could not have been built from the frequency document alone, the same situation this course's WMA11 schedule records for its own paper. Also read in full: research/veridian/WME01-verified-facts.md §2 (assessment structure — 75 marks, 90 minutes, the calculator-always-allowed correction), §4 (per-topic verified content), §6 ("topics with enough verified material for a genuine standalone lesson" — used here as a second, independent signal alongside the topic briefs' own frequency counts), and §7 (topics flagged as genuinely thin). Cross-checked against forge-exam-technique-guide.md (timing, mark-coding, the two fully mark-mapped series' own question-by-question tables) and codex-formula-and-method-bank.md (formulas and worked methods) so neither is repeated here. The nine curriculum lesson files in content/veridian/curriculum/wme01/ were checked by filename against this folder's topic-brief list to confirm the tier mapping in §2, not re-read in full — their own worked exemplars, diagrams and marked solutions are not reproduced here. content/veridian/question-bank/wme01.ts was checked for overlap and holds only two items (a Jan 2025 Q1(b) vector-resultant part and a Jan 2025 Q7(c) two-stage-pulley part), neither duplicated below. Every repetition count and day-interval in §3 is this course's own scheduling construction, not a cited psychology finding, and reuses the six-cycle Day-0/2/5/10/18/30 widening-interval pattern already established for this course in content/veridian/technique-hub/wbs11/forge-spaced-repetition-schedule.md §3 and reused for WMA11 — flagged as a reused convention, not a new finding, exactly as those two documents flag it. Unlike WMA11's technique-hub, WME01's already has both forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md and forge-error-pattern-tracker.md; §5 below states exactly how this document divides the calendar with the first and defers to the second, rather than silently overlapping either. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel. No likelihood percentage or grade boundary appears anywhere below.

WME01 — Spaced Repetition Schedule (Unit M1: Mechanics 1)

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

This document answers one question: given WME01's real, uneven distribution of exam coverage across its nine taught lesson topics, how many times should a student revisit each one before the exam, and in what order? It does not re-teach content, and does not reproduce:

What it adds: an actual repetition count per lesson topic, built by reading three real signals — each topic brief's own "of 17" sighting count, its recovered mark-tariff pattern, and how many named series independently confirm the same error — as weighting evidence, rather than assuming every one of this paper's nine taught topics deserves the same number of passes. No other WME01 technique-hub document does this.

1. Why repetition count should track three real signals, not one

signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 makes one finding very clearly: in the only two series this course has fully, question-by-question mark-mapped (Jan 2025, Jun 2025), every spec topic except modelling (1.1) anchored a real question in both — vectors, kinematics, Newton's second law, connected particles, momentum, friction, statics and moments all scored 2 of 2. Read on its own, that finding would argue for a flat schedule: eight topics tied at the same rate, one clear outlier.

That finding is real, but it is also, by that document's own words, "narrow" — two series is not enough on its own to rank eight topics against each other. The nine topic briefs in this folder supply the finer signal signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 explicitly declines to build across the full 17-series archive, and three things emerge once each topic's own brief is read in full.

First, raw frequency across the wider archive is genuinely uneven. Connected particles/pulleys/ lifts is confirmed in 7 of 17 series checked — the highest of any topic, and the sub-topic the facts bank itself names as "the richest sub-topic in the whole unit" [WME01-verified-facts.md §4 topic 4]. Moments and kinematics (widened to include their own adjacent angles) each reach 6 of 17; vectors, momentum and friction each sit at 5 of 17; equilibrium's bare form drops to 4 of 17; Newton's second law in vector form to 3 of 17; modelling's own dedicated critique question to 2 of 17 [each figure from that topic's own signal-topic-brief-*.md §1]. A flat schedule would spend as much repetition on modelling as on connected particles despite one being checked more than three times as often across the archive this course has actually reviewed.

Second, mark weight and named-trap repeatability don't always move together — and where they diverge, that divergence is itself real evidence, not noise to average away. Connected particles has both the highest frequency and the heaviest recorded tariff of any topic (15 of 75 marks in Jan 2025, 17 of 75 in Jun 2025, both times the paper's final question) — but the specific pattern that makes it the final question, a pulley system handing over into free motion, is confirmed in only 2 named series, explicitly flagged elsewhere in this course's own material as "short of the 3+ series this course otherwise wants before calling something a standing convention" [signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1]. Momentum's sign-convention trap and moments' pivot-choice trap, by contrast, sit at more modest raw frequency (5 of 17 and 6 of 17 respectively) but each has its own single named error independently confirmed in 3 named series — momentum's in Jan 2020, Oct 2022 and Jun 2024 [signal-topic-brief-momentum-impulse-sign-convention.md §1], moments' in Jan 2023, Jun 2024 and Oct 2023 [signal-topic-brief-moments-rods-on-two-pivots.md §3] — which the facts bank itself calls, for moments specifically, "as close to a hard, repeatable 'how to teach this' rule as this whole document produces" [WME01-verified-facts.md §4 topic 6]. Frequency alone would rank connected particles well above momentum and moments; the repeatable-trap evidence says momentum and moments have something just as valuable to drill against, for a different reason. This schedule states, per topic below, which signal is actually driving each tier assignment.

Third, this paper's own formula booklet gives M1 candidates almost nothing to look up — which is a real, checkable reason repeated retrieval practice matters more here than for a paper with a fuller booklet. The booklet's entire Mechanics 1 entry reads: "There are no formulae given for M1 in addition to those candidates are expected to know." Momentum (mv), impulse (mv − mu) and all five suvat equations must be recalled from memory, not looked up [WME01-verified-facts.md §2]. A spaced-repetition schedule for a paper where the core equations of two entire topics (momentum and kinematics) are 100% recall is doing more real work than one for a paper where those equations are printed in front of the candidate.

None of this licenses skipping a thin topic: every spec item is compulsory content, and signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md §1 itself warns not to "deprioritise a topic on the theory that it's 'less likely'" — the two-series record doesn't support that theory for any topic on this paper. What it licenses is an honest allocation of repeated practice: a topic with a thin archive record and no confirmed repeatable trap has no repeatable exam-question pattern to drill against beyond one accurate encoding pass; a topic with either a heavy, well-attested mark tariff or a trap confirmed across three or more named series has a real pattern worth rehearsing again and again.

2. The six tiers, built from each topic's own real evidence

All nine curriculum lesson topics below are placed using two signals stated explicitly per topic: the topic's own confirmed sighting count out of the 17 series with a genuine primary document reviewed for this paper (from its own signal-topic-brief-*.md, finer-grained than signal-frequency-and-boundaries.md's own table), and, where it exists, a named-trap count — how many of those series independently confirm the same recurring error, which this course treats as meeting a "standing convention" once it reaches three.

Tier 1 — highest raw frequency and the heaviest recorded tariff on the whole paper

Tier 2 — a single named error confirmed across three or more series each (the strongest repeatability signal in this paper's record)

Tier 3 — real, substantial, but the tariff and frequency are stronger than any single trap's own repeat count

Tier 4 — real archive presence, but each specific trap is thinner and the shape is less consistent

Tier 5 — confirmed in both fully mapped recent series, but never an independent question worth drilling alone

Tier 6 — confirmed thinnest in the entire archive, but compulsory content

3. The six-cycle schedule

This reuses the six-cycle, widening-interval pattern (Day 0, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30) already established for this course in wbs11/forge-spaced-repetition-schedule.md §3 and reused for WMA11 — a scheduling convention, stated here as one, not a new cited finding. The widening exists so Tier 1 and Tier 2 material gets revisited before it can fade, while Tier 5/6 material gets one or two concentrated passes instead of being spread across cycles that thin material doesn't need. If fewer than 30 days remain, compress by dropping the latest cycles first and keep Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 intact, since Tier 6's single pass and Tier 1's first pass both live there — and hand off to forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md once inside the final 48 hours regardless of where this schedule's own compression lands (see §5).

CycleDayTier 1 (every cycle)Tier 2 (3 passes each)Tier 3 (3 passes each)Tier 4 (2 passes each)Tier 5 / Tier 6
10Yes — draw two separate diagrams, one per connected body, before writing either body's equationMomentum sign-convention (first pass)Kinematics two-stage motion (first pass)Vectors/bearings (first pass) — fold in Newton's 2nd law here (see §4)Modelling-critique — the one dedicated pass, not repeated
22YesMoments pivot-choice (first pass)Friction/rough plane (first pass) — fold in the exact-fraction "show that" habit here (see §4)Equilibrium bare (first pass)—
35YesMomentum (second pass)Kinematics (second pass)——
410YesMoments (second pass)Friction (second pass) — fold in "show that" habit againVectors/bearings (second pass)—
518YesMomentum (third pass)Kinematics (third pass)Equilibrium bare (second pass)—
630YesMoments (third pass)Friction (third pass) — fold in "show that" habit a third time——

Reading this as repetition counts rather than a calendar: Tier 1's one topic (connected particles) gets six passes, the most of anything, matching its status as this paper's highest-frequency and heaviest-tariff topic. Tier 2's two topics each get three passes, more than Tier 3 or 4 despite their lower raw frequency, because each carries a single named error confirmed across three separate series — the strongest repeatability evidence this paper's record has. Tier 3's two topics also get three passes each, reflecting their real mark weight and archive presence even though neither has a trap that individually clears the three-series bar. Tier 4's two topics get two passes each. Tier 5's one topic gets no dedicated slot of its own — folded into Tier 4's vectors passes instead, see §4 — and Tier 6's one topic gets exactly one pass, in Cycle 1 only, consistent with §1's reasoning: a topic with a thin archive record and no confirmed repeatable trap has no standalone exam-question pattern to drill against beyond one accurate encoding pass.

4. Two judgement calls, stated explicitly

Newton's second law in vector form is not given its own cycle slot, because its own real record says it shouldn't be. In all three of its confirmed appearances it sits inside a larger question, sharing marks with vectors (spec 2.1) or with resolution (spec 5.1) [signal-topic-brief-newtons-second-law-in-vector-form.md §3]. Scheduling it as an isolated slot would rehearse the vector form of F = ma out of the context it actually appears in. Instead, every Tier 4 vectors/bearings pass above (Cycles 1 and 4) should end with the specific check this topic's own record best supports: if the forces in a question arrive as a magnitude and an angle rather than already in i/j form, resolve into components before trying to apply Newton's second law — the one confirmed real instance where this exact sequencing was required (Jun 2025 Q4) [signal-topic-brief-newtons-second-law-in-vector-form.md §1, §4].

The "show that"/"hence show that" exact-fraction habit is folded into the friction cycles rather than scheduled as its own item, because it is not actually a spec-1.1-specific finding. The modelling lesson covers this command-word discipline alongside its own (much thinner) modelling- critique content, but the discipline itself is confirmed across at least 5 of the 17 series as a general instruction ("a full explanation, including all steps, is required to earn full marks... the explanation must use one or more of the previous parts of the question"), and its one specific exactness sub-rule — carrying a given fraction like 3/5 or 4/5 through a "show that" step without switching to a decimal — is confirmed in exactly one named series, and that series is a friction/ incline question, not a modelling one (Jun 2025 Q6) [signal-topic-brief-modelling-assumptions-and-show-that-discipline.md §1, §4]. Scheduling it as its own isolated slot would rehearse it out of the one context this archive has actually shown it in. Instead, every friction-cycle pass above (Cycles 2, 4, 6) ends with that specific habit: write the exact fraction through to the final line rather than a rounded decimal, since the one clearly identified finding is a mark withheld for switching to a decimal mid-working, not for the final numeric answer being wrong.

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 later, or the point where §3's own compression rule applies). forge-forty-eight-hour-checklist.md owns everything inside the final 48 hours — its own T-48 to T-0 block plan, including the one full timed paper it schedules and its own retrieval-practice self-test — and this document does not duplicate any of it. Do not treat this schedule's own Cycle 6 as still running once inside 48 hours of the exam; hand off to that document at that point regardless of which cycle this schedule's own compression rule has reached. forge-error-pattern-tracker.md owns a different, complementary job this document also does not duplicate: it is where a student logs their own timed-practice mistakes, cycle by cycle, against this course's eleven confirmed error-pattern categories. This schedule tells a student what to revisit and how often; the tracker is where they record what actually went wrong when they did.

6. Honesty notes