Part a (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies financial growth opportunities or loss minimisation as a prescribed driver. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Links slower domestic growth to a search for overseas revenue. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Identifies consumer purchasing and spending patterns as a prescribed driver. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Links the 38% enquiry rise to possible Singapore demand.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another of the four prescribed drivers only when the supplied case supports it; a grant, FTA or technology is not itself a listed driver.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (3 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies imported competition. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains pressure on price, market share or margin. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Derives a credible efficiency or differentiation implication without assuming guaranteed recovery.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a different defensible employment, technology, cooperation, domestic-market or tax implication when it answers the particular question and uses supplied evidence.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part c (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Gives a supported retain, adapt or relocate judgement. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains a provenance, local-skills or supplier-employment benefit. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Evaluates a cost, seasonal-supply or scale limitation. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Links the judgement to target-market acceptance rather than assuming Australian origin guarantees demand.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept local skills, design control, supplier employment or provenance benefits; a supported decision to adapt or relocate can earn full marks. An opposing conclusion may receive full marks when it addresses the same case constraints and supplies the required justification.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies excessive overtime as a worker-welfare issue. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains why the 12% saving does not establish responsible outsourcing. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Weighs cost against worker, reputation or supply-continuity consequences. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Supports conditional approval, corrective action or rejection using verified labour evidence.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept accurate equivalent concepts or a different case-supported judgement that answers every requested element; indicative recommendations are not compulsory. An opposing conclusion may receive full marks when it addresses the same case constraints and supplies the required justification.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (5 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Explains the host tax concession's potential establishment-cost effect. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains the tariff benefit for qualifying goods. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Qualifies both benefits using eligibility, origin or non-tariff compliance. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Links secure checkout to transaction trust and reduced payment or privacy exposure. Checkpoint 5 (1 mark): Links dependable order and delivery integration to service feasibility and launch readiness.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a relevant incentive, origin-rule, compliance or non-tariff-cost explanation; trade agreements do not automatically remove every entry condition.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (3 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies consistent recognition as a benefit of retaining the wave logo. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains how recognition can support customer trust or reduce duplicated brand-development cost. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Applies the explanation to CoralArc's existing recognisable logo without assuming every marketing element must be standardised.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept accurate equivalent concepts or a different case-supported judgement that answers every requested element; indicative recommendations are not compulsory.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (3 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Uses strong demand for compact products as favourable consumer-demand evidence. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Uses established competitors as a feasibility risk requiring differentiation. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Explains that consumption preferences for lighter packaging and meaningful names affect likely market acceptance.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept accurate equivalent concepts or a different case-supported judgement that answers every requested element; indicative recommendations are not compulsory.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part c (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Supports standardising the recognisable wave logo or core fragrance-free benefit. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Supports adapting pack size to compact-product demand. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Supports adapting the product name or positioning to local meaning and competition. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Makes a supported judgement that selective adaptation preserves brand equity while improving local relevance.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept accurate equivalent concepts or a different case-supported judgement that answers every requested element; indicative recommendations are not compulsory. An opposing conclusion may receive full marks when it addresses the same case constraints and supplies the required justification.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (3 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Explains local customer or distribution access. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains complementary after-sales technicians. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Recognises shared decisions or returns as a governance cost.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another relevant control, capability, integration, ownership or reputation implication of the named alliance supported by the case.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies euro movement before receipt as currency risk. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Matches a hedge or currency term to it. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Identifies customer default rather than an on-time credit period as non-payment risk. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Matches documented payment security, credit assessment or insurance to default.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a matched hedge or currency clause for currency risk and credit checks, payment security, documentation or credit insurance for default risk. Cash timing alone is not customer default.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part c (3 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): States a supported proceed, defer or reject decision. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains a local-service or market-entry benefit. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Uses cost, testing or launch readiness to qualify the decision.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a supported proceed, defer or reject decision using the supplied timing, cost, technology or market evidence. An opposing conclusion may receive full marks when it addresses the same case constraints and supplies the required justification.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part d (2 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Identifies responsibility for update approval or technician training. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains how agreement prevents conflicting joint-venture decisions or unreliable service.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another relevant control, capability, integration, ownership or reputation implication of the named alliance supported by the case.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Classifies faster warranty decisions (+4) as driving. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Classifies limited language training (−3) as restraining. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Calculates a net +1 driving balance. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Explains that reducing the training barrier matters more than treating the score as proof of readiness.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept equivalent driving/restraining terminology and a different supported intervention; the net score is a planning aid, not proof of success.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (5 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Creates urgency using warranty-delay evidence. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Builds a coalition with regional technicians and managers. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Communicates a shared service vision with clear local decision responsibilities. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Removes the language barrier through appropriate training and support. Checkpoint 5 (1 mark): Uses a verified regional pilot win and explains how its service and adoption evidence supports continuation.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a coherent selection of relevant Kotter steps with case-specific action; an early win must demonstrate a real benefit rather than merely announce a launch.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (4 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Selects the syllabus formula: current ratio = current assets ÷ current liabilities. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Substitutes the supplied values: $900,000 ÷ $600,000 = 1.50:1. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): States the correctly rounded result 1.50:1. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): The business has $1.50 of current assets for every $1 of current liabilities.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept equivalent valid formula notation and working. Credit a correct interpretation consequential on an earlier arithmetic error without awarding the numerical accuracy mark twice.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part b (5 raw marks)

Checkpoint 1 (1 mark): Gives a supported judgement that the ratio alone is insufficient. Checkpoint 2 (1 mark): Explains that slow stock may not turn into cash at its recorded value when needed. Checkpoint 3 (1 mark): Uses 90-day receivables and 30-day liabilities to explain the cash-timing mismatch. Checkpoint 4 (1 mark): Explains that the ratio is a snapshot and does not show future operating cash generation. Checkpoint 5 (1 mark): Identifies a cash-flow, asset-quality or repayment assessment needed before deciding.

Acceptable alternatives: Accept other genuine current-ratio limitations: receivable collectibility, inventory saleability or valuation, liability timing and snapshot effects. Credit a supported funding decision with the necessary cash evidence; ownership or security alone is not a ratio limitation.

Do not credit by itself: Does not use the supplied case fact, misclassifies the business factor, or gives a recommendation or concept that the question did not request.

Part a (5 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Identifies trial demand (1), explains the absence of guaranteed later orders (1), and derives a scale or commitment implication (1). Allocation (2 marks): Identifies the 24-hour service requirement and current staffing constraint (1), and explains their effect on feasible delivery (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another supported demand or capacity assessment; do not assume the trial guarantees commercial scale.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part b (8 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Explains direct-export control (1), applies the $900,000 commitment (1), and develops its resource trade-off (1). Allocation (3 marks): Explains joint-venture complementary resources (1), applies premises or six technicians (1), and develops shared-profit or decision-right costs (1). Allocation (2 marks): Identifies software or patent exposure (1) and specifies a matched governance or technical safeguard (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept direct export as preferable when a feasible service plan and capital buffer support it, or a different negotiated ownership arrangement.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part c (12 raw marks)

Allocation (4 marks): Explains conditional ANZCERTA benefit (1), certification requirement (1), a case-supported entry judgement (1), and a commercial qualification to it (1). Allocation (4 marks): Identifies a brand element to retain (1), justified local adaptation (1), currency exposure with a matched control (1), and default exposure with a matched control (1). Allocation (4 marks): Specifies service and demand evidence (2), links net returns or capital to expansion (1), and states a decision trigger rather than an unqualified launch (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a staged direct-export strategy with equally credible service, compliance, payment and capital controls; a supported deferral may also earn full marks.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part a (4 raw marks)

Allocation (2 marks): Identifies excessive finished stock using 70 days (1) and outlines cash or expiry consequences (1). Allocation (2 marks): Identifies failed seals using the two-batch evidence (1) and outlines rework, delay or customer consequences (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another evidenced operations problem, such as weekly inventory updates causing unavailable orders, if two distinct problems and their effects are outlined.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part b (9 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Distinguishes seal inspection/control (1), preventative process assurance (1), and ongoing fault-based improvement (1), applied to the failed batches. Allocation (3 marks): Explains lower finished-stock benefits (1), variable oats-supply risk (1), and a supported inventory balance (1). Allocation (3 marks): Links demand data to scheduling (1), accurate stock records to customer promises (1), and explains how the coordinated response reduces a case problem (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept a different supported buffer or production cadence; no particular inventory technique is compulsory when supply and shelf-life risks are addressed.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part c (12 raw marks)

Allocation (4 marks): Explains sealing benefit (1), applies cost (1) and training constraint (1), and judges its priority with case support (1). Allocation (4 marks): Explains advertising opportunity (1), applies conversion evidence (1), analyses fulfilment dependence (1), and gives a coordinated implementation sequence (1). Allocation (4 marks): Sets relevant quality and stock measures (2), a marketing or fulfilment measure (1), and a decision/control response to results (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept an advertising-first or smaller-project sequence supported by reliable fulfilment arrangements and a defensible budget assessment.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part a (3 raw marks)

Allocation (1 mark): Identifies a supplied communication or decision-making expectation. Allocation (2 marks): Explains an operational effect (1) and applies a relevant case-specific communication response (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept language accessibility or meeting participation as the consideration when its cultural communication effect is explained.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part b (5 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Explains a suitable style (1), applies it to safety or design (1), and analyses its decision or participation effect (1). Allocation (2 marks): Identifies a relevant leadership trait (1) and explains its case-linked contribution (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept another justified mixture of prescribed leadership styles and traits; full marks do not require one national style per team.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part c (5 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Recommends a concrete inclusion or capability action (1), applies language or junior participation evidence (1), and explains a service-growth benefit (1). Allocation (2 marks): Addresses the $90,000 or supervisor constraint (1) and justifies the priority (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept mentoring, recruitment or structured user testing that uses diverse expertise and addresses the stated resource constraint.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part d (6 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Identifies worker-age/minimum-standard risk (1), explains why price is insufficient (1), and specifies verification or corrective action (1). Allocation (3 marks): Explains CSR beyond minimum price/law (1), applies low-bandwidth access (1), and specifies accountability or monitoring (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept conditional retention of the existing supplier or another accountable sourcing arrangement that verifies age controls and learner-access commitments.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.

Part e (6 raw marks)

Allocation (3 marks): Selects two relevant people/service measures (2) and explains what they reveal (1). Allocation (3 marks): Selects a labour/access measure (1), gives a supported overall success judgement (1), and explains a control action or resource qualification (1).

Acceptable alternatives: Accept other relevant measures and a different supported priority, provided the judgement balances business performance and responsibility.

Do not credit by itself: Uses evidence from a different subpart without answering this task; lists concepts without the requested case relationship; assumes an outcome unsupported by the case.