ACCA SBR — Master Plan
ACCA SBR · Sep 2025–Jun 2026 · 7 Examiner Reports

Master Lesson Plan —
Examiner-Report Upgraded

Every topic rated across 7 sittings (SD22 · MJ23 · S23 · MJ24 · SD24 · MJ25 · D25), with direct examiner warnings woven into each topic. Syllabus order A → F.

Reports7 sittings
Topics29
Duration3h 15m · 100 marks
D25 Pass48%
Per topicTeaching + 10 MCQ + Task
BuiltA1, B1, D1a, D1b

★Topic Frequency — 7 Sittings

✓ = topic appeared as primary or significant secondary area. On small screens, swipe the table horizontally or tap the “Freq” and “Priority” columns.

← Swipe table to see all sittings →
Topic / Standard SD22MJ23S23MJ24SD24MJ25D25 FreqPriority
Group Accounting — Consolidation / Goodwill (IFRS 3, IFRS 10)✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7/7Tier 1
Associates & Equity Method (IAS 28)✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7/7Tier 1
IFRS 9 — Financial Instruments (all)✓✓✓✓✓✓✓7/7Tier 1
Step Acquisitions & Changes in Ownership✓✓✓–✓✓✓6/7Tier 1
IFRS 15 — Revenue Recognition✓–✓✓✓✓✓6/7Tier 1
Ethics — Threats, Principles & Actions (A1)✓✓–✓✓✓✓6/7Tier 1
IAS 36 — Impairment (PPE & CGU)–✓✓✓✓✓✓6/7Tier 1
Foreign Currency — IAS 21✓––✓✓✓✓5/7Tier 1
IAS 19 — Employee Benefits (Defined Benefit)––✓✓✓✓✓5/7Tier 1
IAS 12 — Deferred Tax–––✓✓✓✓4/7Tier 1
Conceptual Framework (B1)–––✓✓✓✓4/7Tier 2
IFRS 5 — Held for Sale & Discontinued Ops✓–✓✓––✓4/7Tier 2
Sustainability — IFRS S1/S2––––✓✓✓3/7Tier 2
IFRS 16 — Leases––––✓✓✓3/7Tier 2
IAS 37 — Provisions & Contingencies–✓–✓–––2/7Tier 2
IAS 38 — Intangible Assets–✓–––✓–2/7Tier 2
IAS 7 — Consolidated Cash Flows–✓––✓––2/7Tier 2
IFRS 2 — Share-Based Payment–––––✓–1/7Tier 2
IFRS 18 — Presentation & MPMs (new 25/26)––––––✓1/7*Tier 2
IAS 40 — Investment Property––––––✓1/7Tier 2
IFRS 11 — Joint Arrangements✓––––––1/7Tier 2
IFRS 8 — Segment Reporting–✓–✓–––2/7Tier 3
IFRS 13 — Fair Value––––––✓1/7Tier 3
IAS 24 — Related Parties–––✓–––1/7Tier 3

The universal examiner message across all 7 reports (SD22–D25): “Answers which merely present knowledge-based facts with minimal application to the scenario are unlikely to score well — few marks are available for rote-learned knowledge at this level.” Every lesson is built around application, not recitation.

ASection A — Ethics & Professional Principles

A

A1 — Professional & Ethical Behaviour in Corporate Reporting

A1 · Level 3 · 6/7
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
A1
Five Principles · Five Threat Types · Specific Actions · Consequences
Q location: Q2(a) every sitting · Marks: 8–10 technical + 2 professional marks
The examiner commented across SD22, MJ23, MJ24, SD24 and D25 that candidates who give a “standard set of actions such as resign or call ACCA without application to the scenario will score very few marks.” In SD24 the examiner noted that very few candidates mentioned documenting conversations — documentation is a concrete, scorable action. In D25 the examiner observed that both the self-interest threat (bonus scheme) and professional competence breach (no notes at meeting) needed to be named and linked to specific scenario facts to earn marks.
Tier 1
6/7
DONE

BSection B — The Financial Reporting Framework

B

B1 — The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting

B1 · Level 3 · 4/7
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
B1
Objectives · Qualitative Characteristics · Elements · Recognition · Measurement · Materiality
Q location: Woven into Q2, Q3, Q4 · Marks: 4–8 as supporting discussion
The MJ25 examiner commented that “a better understanding of the Conceptual Framework would help to improve candidates’ performance more generally across the whole SBR examination.” In MJ24 the examiner noted that candidates who could articulate why a treatment failed to produce faithful representation — rather than simply stating it was “wrong” — earned significantly more marks in discussion requirements.
Tier 2
4/7
DONE

CSection C — Reporting Financial Performance

C

C1 — Revenue (IFRS 15) · 6/7 sittings

C1 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C1a
Five-Step Model, Performance Obligations, Over-Time vs Point-in-Time, Contract Modifications
Q location: Q2b or Q3 · Marks: 6–10
The SD22 examiner commented on the Rubul Co consignment question that “merely listing out the five steps will not earn marks — the issue relates specifically to the final step.” The examiner added that a good answer “would begin with a discussion on when revenue is recognised under IFRS 15, and then apply this to the scenario.” In MJ24 the examiner noted that candidates recognised crowdfunding receipts as contract liabilities but failed to identify the performance obligation arising from the promised delivery of the drone.
Tier 1
6/7
NEXT
C1b
Complex Revenue — Upfront Fees · Variable Consideration · Financing · Consignment · Principal vs Agent
Q location: Q2b or Q3 · Marks: 6–10
In the D25 Tacoco Co question the examiner noted that while spreading the upfront fee over the contract term was correct, many candidates missed that one month fell within the current reporting year. The examiner also observed that the deferred tax treatment of the contract liability was one of the weakest areas — most candidates suggested a DTL rather than a DTA, failing to correctly compare the tax base (nil, taxed on receipt) with the carrying amount.
Tier 1
5/7
TO DO
C

C2 — Non-Current Assets (IAS 16, IAS 36, IAS 38, IFRS 5, IAS 40, IAS 23) · 6/7

C2 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C2a
PPE, Revaluation, Borrowing Costs & CGU Impairment (IAS 16, IAS 36, IAS 23)
Q location: Q3 · Marks: 8–17
In MJ24 the examiner commented on the Jobon Co question that “weaker answers were not always because of a lack of technical knowledge but rather due to candidates answering the question they wanted to answer rather than the one being asked” — candidates listed impairment indicators when the question asked why a CGU should have been tested. The S23 examiner noted that where NCI was valued at proportionate share, goodwill must be grossed up 100/80 for the impairment test, and that very few answers addressed this. In D25 the examiner identified including current assets in the CGU carrying amount when comparing to recoverable amount as a very widespread error.
Tier 1
6/7
TO DO
C2b
Intangible Assets, Assets Held for Sale & Investment Property (IAS 38, IFRS 5, IAS 40)
Q location: Q3 · Marks: 8–17
The MJ23 examiner noted that candidates often did not discuss both arguments for and against capitalisation of intangibles — “simply stating an answer without first providing any rationale” loses available marks. In S23 the examiner pointed out that abandoned assets cannot be classified as held for sale, and that candidates should apply each IFRS 5 criterion to the scenario rather than just listing criteria. In D25 the examiner commented that many candidates saw the words “operating lease” in the exhibit and immediately wrote IFRS 16 lessee content, even though the property had not yet been leased out — a clear case of not reading dates carefully. The examiner also noted that gains on transfer from PPE to investment property under the revaluation model go to OCI, not P&L, which many candidates missed.
Tier 1
4/7
TO DO
C

C3 — Financial Instruments (IFRS 9) · 7/7 sittings

C3 · Level 2–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C3a
Classification, Measurement, Amortised Cost & Derecognition
Q location: Q2b or Q3 · Marks: 6–10
The MJ23 examiner commented that “many candidates did not correctly treat the transaction costs at initial recognition” and “did not appear to understand the difference between the effective interest rate and the interest paid — the interest expense recognised in profit or loss was calculated using the effective interest rate, but many candidates treated the interest paid as the interest expense.” In MJ24 the examiner noted that very few candidates discussed how an amortised cost approach should be applied to an interest-free director loan, failing to discount the receipt to the present value of future expected cash flows. In MJ25 the examiner observed that where the FVOCI election had not been made, FVTPL is the only option, yet many candidates stated “measured at fair value” without specifying that changes go to P&L not OCI.
Tier 1
7/7
TO DO
C3b
ECL Impairment Model, Hedge Accounting & Derivatives
Q location: Q2 or Q3 · Marks: 4–8
In D25 the examiner noted that candidates spent time discussing whether cash flow hedge criteria were met even though the exhibit stated they were, and that the effective portion going to OCI and the ineffective portion to P&L was confused by many. In MJ25 the examiner commented that on the loan exchanged for equity shares, derecognition should be at the fair value of shares received — not the face value of the loan — and that the resulting loss on derecognition was frequently missed entirely.
Tier 1
4/7
TO DO
C

C4 — Leases (IFRS 16) · 3/7 sittings

C4 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C4
Lessee · Lessor · Sale & Leaseback · Remeasurement · Exemptions · Subleases
Q location: Q2b or Q3 · Marks: 4–8
In D25 IFRS 16 appeared in an ethics context, with the examiner noting the importance of separating the accounting issue from the ethical issue within the same answer. The examiner also commented on the Arundel Co question that many candidates saw the phrase “operating lease” in the exhibit and applied IFRS 16 lessee content, even though the property had not yet been leased out — a reading-dates error that cost significant marks.
Tier 2
3/7
TO DO
C

C5 — Employee Benefits (IAS 19) · 5/7 sittings

C5 · Level 2–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C5
Defined Benefit Plans · P&L vs OCI Split · Amendments / Curtailments / Settlements · Asset Ceiling
Q location: Q1 in every sitting since S23 · Marks: 8–10
The MJ25 examiner noted that a significant minority put the remeasurement gain to P&L rather than OCI — remeasurements go to OCI and are never reclassified to P&L. The examiner also noted that some candidates calculated interest cost on the closing net deficit rather than the opening figure. In SD24 the examiner observed that the additional cost of settling a $50m obligation for $60m was frequently overlooked, and that contributions to the plan were incorrectly left as an expense rather than reducing the net deficit. In D25 the examiner commented that pension adjustments were omitted in the spreadsheet part because candidates focused on the group accounting issue and forgot to include the pension correction.
Tier 1
5/7
TO DO
C

C6 — Income Taxes (IAS 12) · 4/7 sittings

C6 · Level 2–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C6
Current Tax · Deferred Tax · OCI Items · Business Combination DT · IAS 12 Initial Recognition Exemption
Q location: Q1, Q2, Q3 as supporting element · Marks: 4–6
The D25 examiner identified the deferred tax treatment of the IFRS 15 contract liability as one of the weakest areas in the paper. The examiner noted that most candidates suggested a DTL rather than a DTA, failing to correctly compare the tax base (nil, as it was taxed on receipt) with the carrying amount of the contract liability. In MJ25 the examiner commented that many candidates put the exchange difference on a foreign currency bond to OCI rather than P&L — monetary items are retranslated at the closing rate with the difference going to P&L.
Tier 1
4/7
TO DO
C

C7 — Provisions & Contingencies (IAS 37, IAS 10) · 2/7

C7 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C7
Provisions · Onerous Contracts · Restructuring · Contingencies · Events After Reporting Period
Q location: Q3 · Marks: 7–8
The MJ23 examiner noted that on the Fernanda Co question candidates needed to evaluate the acceptability of management’s decision not to record a liability — not simply explain how to record one. This required applying the three IAS 37 recognition criteria to the specific facts and drawing a conclusion. The SD22 examiner commented that environmental provisions should be discounted where material and that the unwinding of the discount should be treated as a finance cost in each subsequent period.
Tier 2
2/7
TO DO
C

C8 — Share-Based Payment (IFRS 2) · 1/7

C8 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C8
Equity-Settled · Cash-Settled · Choice Arrangements · Scope (including asset purchases)
Q location: Q3 · Marks: 6–8
The MJ25 examiner commented that “very few students noticed that purchasing a trademark via issuing shares was within the scope of IFRS 2.” The examiner described this as a disappointing performance on what is a well-established standard and noted that the credit for the transaction should go to equity, not to a financial liability, which many candidates who did recognise the scope still got wrong.
Tier 2
1/7
TO DO
C

C9 — Fair Value Measurement (IFRS 13) · 1/7

C9 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C9
Fair Value Hierarchy · Valuation Techniques · Principal Market · Highest & Best Use
Q location: Q3 · Supporting issue in business combinations and impairment · Marks: 4–6
The D25 examiner noted that on the FVLCTS calculation, candidates measured at fair value without deducting costs to sell — the deduction is mandatory under both IFRS 5 and IFRS 13. The examiner also commented that the NCI at fair value calculation — market price per share multiplied by NCI shares — was a straightforward calculation that many candidates nonetheless struggled with.
Tier 2
1/7
TO DO
C

C10 — Presentation & Disclosure — IFRS 18 · NEW FOR 25/26 · 1/7*

C10 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C10
Three P&L Categories · Management-Defined Performance Measures (MPMs) · Aggregation · Disclosure Notes
Q location: Q2 ethics angle + Q4 discussion · Marks: 4–8 · *First appeared D25; high probability MJ26 and SD26
The D25 examiner noted that the aggregation of goodwill impairment within administrative expenses was simultaneously a technical and an ethical issue — IFRS 18 requires goodwill impairment to be presented separately in the operating category. The examiner commented that very few candidates connected both dimensions in their answers, with most treating it as either purely technical or purely ethical rather than both.
Tier 2
1/7*
TO DO
C

C11 — Other Reporting Issues (IAS 20, IAS 8, Going Concern, IAS 24, IFRS for SMEs) · 2/7

C11 · Level 2–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
C11
Government Grants · Accounting Policies & Estimates · Going Concern · Related Parties · IFRS for SMEs
Q location: Q2 or Q3 supporting · Marks: 2–5 · Going concern elevated to C11c for 25/26
The MJ24 examiner noted that on the Abasi Co question, candidates who identified the director as a related party (holding 50% of ordinary shares) were able to earn marks for the IAS 24 disclosure requirement, but that many candidates missed this identification step entirely. Going concern has been moved from section F to C11c in the 25/26 syllabus, elevating it from a contemporary issues topic to a full technical standard with recognition and disclosure implications.
Tier 2
2/7
TO DO

DSection D — Financial Statements of Groups

D

D1 — Group Accounting Including Statements of Cash Flows · 7/7

D1 · Level 1–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
D1a
Control Principle & Business Combinations (IFRS 10, IFRS 3)
Q location: Q1 every sitting · Marks: 5–10
The SD24 examiner noted that a significant minority missed relatively basic marks by not covering the definition of control before applying it to the scenario. In MJ23 the examiner commented that candidates’ answers should have discussed both why the identified company was the acquirer and why the arguments might point to the other party — the question required evaluation of a finely balanced position, and one-sided answers lost marks. The SD22 examiner observed that many candidates found difficulty differentiating between accounting in the parent’s own financial statements and the consolidated financial statements.
Tier 1
7/7
DONE
D1b
Acquisition Method — Goodwill · NCI · Fair Value Adjustments · Contingent Consideration
Q location: Q1 every sitting · Marks: 6–12
The MJ25 examiner identified two errors in the Egap Co draft goodwill working: the share exchange consideration had not been included, and NCI had been measured at proportionate share when the group policy was fair value. Both errors cascaded into the spreadsheet in part (c). In MJ23 the examiner noted that very few candidates gave any explanation of the principles behind the goodwill calculation, even though the requirement explicitly said “explain and calculate” — the explanation alone carries two marks. The SD22 examiner commented that some candidates failed to make fair value adjustments at the acquisition date, producing incorrect goodwill and subsidiary net assets.
Tier 1
7/7
DONE
D1c
Intragroup Eliminations · Consolidated Workings · Spreadsheet Technique
Q location: Q1 part (c) every sitting — the spreadsheet requirement · Marks: 10–14
All seven examiner reports repeat the same spreadsheet guidance: never type over draft figures; use one labelled column per adjustment; present workings below the pre-populated data; never embed unreferenced numbers in a cell formula. The S23 examiner commented that some attempts “merely provided a revised consolidated statement of financial position with no adjustments evident in cell formulae or in columns — such cases are impossible to follow and marks cannot be awarded.” The MJ24 examiner noted that very few candidates used a journal approach as a stepping stone between the calculations in part (i) and the corrections in part (ii), even though journals are a valuable tool for ensuring the full double entry is captured. The D25 examiner identified intragroup adjustments entered in the wrong direction as a very widespread sign error.
Tier 1
7/7
NEXT
D1d
Step Acquisitions & Changes in Ownership Interest (Loss of Control / Partial Disposal)
Q location: Q1 · Marks: 8–12
The MJ25 examiner commented on the Egap Co step acquisition that candidates should explain the treatment at each stage of the investment — the equity method phase earns marks separately from the acquisition method phase at year-end. In SD22 the examiner noted that time apportioning profits is treated as a single error, so candidates’ subsequent calculations are not penalised further if IFRS 3 principles are otherwise followed. The MJ23 examiner observed that most candidates did not recognise that the fair value of the original holding should be used as deemed cost when becoming an associate, and that the resulting fair value gain should be recorded in OCI.
Tier 1
6/7
TO DO
D1e
Discontinued Operations · Held-for-Sale Subsidiaries · Consolidation Exemptions · IFRS 19 (new)
Q location: Q1 or Q3 · Marks: 6–9 · IFRS 19 new for 25/26
The S23 examiner noted that abandoned assets cannot be classified as held for sale because carrying amount is not recovered through a sales transaction, and that candidates should apply each IFRS 5 criterion to the specific facts rather than simply listing criteria. The examiner also commented that the effect of impairment immediately before reclassification depends on which IFRS applies to the asset — if the asset carries a revaluation surplus, impairment must first reverse that surplus before affecting P&L. The SD22 examiner noted that on classification as held for sale, the disposal group must be measured at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell, with the resulting impairment allocated to goodwill first.
Tier 2
4/7
TO DO
D1f
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows (IAS 7)
Q location: Q2 or Q1 · Marks: 8
The SD24 examiner identified two errors in the Apaniiwa Co cash flow question: first, a new loan inflow was netted against a lease repayment outflow when IAS 7 requires gross presentation of each; second, a high-interest bank account was classified as a cash equivalent when the notice period exceeded three months, which disqualifies it. The MJ23 examiner noted that many candidates mixed up the classification of cash flows from acquisitions and disposals of subsidiaries (investing activities) with NCI dividends (financing activities).
Tier 2
2/7
TO DO
D

D2 — Associates & Joint Arrangements (IAS 28, IFRS 11) · 7/7

D2 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
D2
Significant Influence · Equity Method · Disposal of Associate · Joint Arrangements (JO vs JV)
Q location: Q1 in almost every sitting · Marks: 8–14
The D25 examiner noted that a significant number of candidates failed to include the fair value of the retained 10% shareholding in the disposal calculation, and that cumulative exchange losses held in OCI needed to be reclassified to P&L on disposal — even where the OCI amount was correctly included in the loss calculation, the reclassification itself was missed. The SD24 examiner commented that “associates are an important part of the SBR syllabus — don’t expect question 1 to always focus on subsidiaries.” The SD22 examiner observed that where a separate vehicle has no direct rights to underlying assets, the arrangement should be classified as a joint venture rather than a joint operation, and that many candidates confused the two. The MJ23 examiner noted that dividends received from an associate go to P&L only, not OCI — a point that many candidates missed.
Tier 1
7/7
TO DO
D

D3 — Foreign Currency (IAS 21) · 5/7 sittings

D3 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
D3
Functional Currency · Translation · Foreign Subsidiary Consolidation · Disposal of Foreign Operation
Q location: Q1 · Marks: 5–12
The MJ24 examiner commented on the Peony Co functional currency requirement that “the use of ‘why’ in the requirement implies this is not something to debate” — candidates should state each IAS 21 determining factor and then explain how it applies to the scenario facts, rather than simply restating the exhibit. The examiner also noted that the NCI at acquisition had been translated at the closing rate rather than the rate at acquisition date, and that very few candidates identified the resulting correcting journal. In D25 the examiner identified the reclassification of cumulative exchange losses from OCI to P&L on disposal of an associate as one of the most widely missed points in the paper. In MJ25 the examiner noted that exchange differences on foreign currency monetary items (a bond) should go to P&L, not OCI.
Tier 1
5/7
TO DO

ESection E — Interpretation for Stakeholders

E

E1 — Analysis, Interpretation & Performance Measurement

E1 · Level 3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
E1a
Financial & Non-Financial Performance · Ratios · EPS · MPMs · Stakeholder Perspective
Q location: Q4 always — 2 professional marks · Marks: 15–20
The SD22 examiner commented that candidates produced ratios but failed to interpret them from the specific stakeholder’s perspective, and that the professional marks reward structured communication to that stakeholder rather than generic ratio recitation. In MJ23 the examiner noted that good answers first identified who the stakeholder was, what decisions they were trying to make, and what information they therefore needed — many answers were too general to earn the professional marks. In D25 the examiner noted that the sustainability metrics question (14 marks in Q4) required candidates to evaluate usefulness to investors rather than simply describing what the disclosures contain.
Tier 2
7/7
TO DO
E1b
Segment Reporting (IFRS 8) & Quality of Financial Information · Note: Integrated Reporting removed 25/26
Q location: Q4 · Marks: 8–12
The MJ23 examiner commented that good answers on segment reporting discussed the usefulness of segment disclosures to investors — specifically what additional information they provide beyond group totals — rather than providing a generic description of the IFRS 8 requirements. Integrated Reporting is no longer specifically examinable in SBR from 25/26, and has been replaced by deeper coverage of IFRS S1/S2 sustainability disclosure standards and management-defined performance measures under IFRS 18.
Tier 2
2/7
TO DO

FSection F — Current Issues in Financial Reporting

F

F1 — Discussion of Issues in Financial Reporting

F1 · Level 2–3
#Topic & Examiner IntelligencePriorityFreqStatus
F1a
Impact of New Standards & Contemporary Issues — Digital Assets · Climate · Global Events
Q location: Q4 or Q3 · Marks: 6–10
The MJ24 examiner noted on the Maple Co question that government regulation changes affecting control required a staged answer: first define what control means in a group context, then apply the new facts, then determine whether loss of control changes the accounting from subsidiary to associate. The SD22 examiner commented that the finance director’s advice to use IFRS 16 for an oil exploration licence — when IFRS 16 explicitly excludes licences of that nature — was itself an example of professional incompetence and due care, connecting the technical and ethical dimensions of the question.
Tier 2
3/7
TO DO
F1b
IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards — IFRS S1/S2 vs ESRS · Integrated Reporting REMOVED
Q location: Q4 · Marks: 8–14 · Growing exam weight in every recent sitting
The D25 examiner noted on the Carroll Co sustainability question that candidates needed to evaluate the usefulness of the disclosures to investors — linking the metrics and targets to investor decision-making about risk and return — rather than simply describing what the disclosures contained. The SD24 examiner commented that full marks required discussion of both the content of IFRS S2 climate disclosures and their limitations, including their forward-looking nature, estimation uncertainty, and the fact that they are not yet mandatory in all jurisdictions.
Tier 2
3/7
TO DO

!Exam Technique — From All 7 Reports

Rule 1 — Application beats knowledge every time. Stated in every single report from SD22 to D25: “Few marks are available for presenting rote-learned knowledge at this level.” State the principle, then apply it to the specific names, numbers, and facts in the exhibit. Two sentences of applied analysis outperform two paragraphs of definitions.

Rule 2 — Answer the question asked, not the one you prepared for. The MJ24 examiner commented that “weaker answers were not always because of a lack of technical knowledge but rather due to candidates answering the question they wanted to answer rather than the one being asked.” Read the verb (explain / calculate / discuss / evaluate) and the scope (which exhibit, which year) before writing anything.

Rule 3 — Q1 time discipline is non-negotiable. Stated in all 7 reports: candidates consistently spend more time on Q1 than allocated, Q4 is then rushed, and professional marks are lost. Formula: 1.95 minutes per mark. Q1 = 59 minutes maximum. Stop and move on.

Rule 4 — Spreadsheet: one column per adjustment, workings below, never overwrite draft figures. Repeated with increasing emphasis across all reports from S23 onwards. The S23 examiner stated: “Entering unreferenced numbers into a cell as part of a formula — avoid. A better approach is to present numbers separately within a working and then reference the total. This skill would be expected of accountants in the workplace.”

Rule 5 — Start with the question you can answer best. The MJ23, MJ24, and SD24 examiners all noted that candidates are not required to answer questions in order, and that Q2 — which focuses on ethics plus one accounting standard — may be a better starting point than Q1 for many candidates, relieving early pressure and building confidence.

Build sequence: A1 ✓ → B1 ✓ → C1a (NEXT) → C1b → C2a → C2b → C3a → C3b → C4 → C5 → C6 → C7 → C8 → C9 → C10 → C11 → D1c → D1d → D1e → D1f → D2 → D3 → E1a → E1b → F1a → F1b. D1a and D1b already built from earlier plan.

Upgraded Master Plan — 7 Reports · 29 Topics · Examiner-Verified

  • Tier 1 — never underprepare: Group accounting (D1a–D1d) · Associates (D2) · Foreign currency (D3) · IAS 19 · IFRS 9 · IFRS 15 · IAS 36 · IAS 12 · Ethics (A1). These dominate Q1, Q2 and Q3 across every sitting.
  • Top 3 by frequency (7/7 sittings): Group accounting / goodwill · Associates / equity method · IFRS 9. These three must be completely fluent before anything else.
  • Biggest mark-loss sources across all 7 reports: Sign errors in spreadsheet · IAS 19 remeasurements to P&L rather than OCI · OCI reclassification on disposal of associate or foreign operation · Deferred tax on IFRS 15 contract liabilities · Goodwill not grossed up for impairment test · Interest cost on closing not opening deficit.
  • Rising topics (last 3 sittings SD24–D25): IAS 19 in every Q1 since S23 · Sustainability growing in Q4 · IFRS 18 debuted D25 — high probability MJ26 and SD26.
  • Removed from 25/26: Integrated Reporting. Going concern moved from F1 to C11c. IFRS 19 reduced disclosures added to D1.
  • Professional marks (4 total — Q2 and Q4): Q2 rewards relevant ethical principles with specific scenario-linked actions. Q4 rewards structured communication to the named stakeholder. Both require targeted, specific responses — not volume.
Back to Course
Next Lesson