Evidence before claim
The route, source links, coverage status, and correction outcome should support the public wording.
Content quality review
A public review pack for curriculum trust.
StudyVector is building exam-specific revision for students, parents, teachers, schools, organisations, and awarding bodies. That only works if content claims can be checked. This page shows what evidence can be shared, how corrections are handled, and which boundaries stay public.
The aim is practical: help students answer better questions, teachers target intervention, families understand progress, and reviewers check wording without turning a conversation into fake social proof.
Corrections stay inspectable
A report should close with a concrete outcome: updated, removed, relabelled, or no change after source check.
Independence stays clear
Exam-board, school, trust, and organisation reviews are not treated as endorsement unless a formal permission exists.
Audience evidence
Each reviewer needs a different proof set.
A useful UK learning ecosystem needs the same content to be inspectable by different people without exposing private learner records or overstating public claims.
Students and parents
Know whether a route is right for the course being revised.
- Evidence to share
- Coverage status, board or specification label, topic route, example question type, and the public correction path.
- Boundary
- StudyVector should not turn family questions into private learner-data disclosures or grade promises.
Teachers and schools
Judge whether practice data can support intervention work.
- Evidence to share
- Subject, board, topic, mastery signal, weak-area pattern, accessibility notes, and what a teacher can see during a trial.
- Boundary
- A school pilot is evidence for that setting only; it is not a public endorsement unless the school gives explicit permission.
Organisations and trusts
Review procurement, safeguarding, data, and curriculum-fit questions before wider rollout.
- Evidence to share
- Product boundary notes, privacy route, correction workflow, role-based visibility, and implementation assumptions.
- Boundary
- Operational review should not be described as approval, certification, or partnership unless a formal agreement exists.
Exam boards and awarding organisations
Check that public wording uses board names accurately and independently.
- Evidence to share
- Route owner, source-link set, last checked date, coverage status, correction status, and public reply boundary.
- Boundary
- Review conversations are not official status, endorsement, access to confidential material, or permission to copy protected papers.
Review packet
What StudyVector can assemble for review.
The review packet is designed for specific route checks, school trials, trust conversations, and awarding-organisation wording queries. It is evidence for the route being reviewed, not a blanket quality claim.
Route packet
Qualification, subject, board or specification, topic, coverage status, current public route, and source links used for the route.
Question packet
Question type, command word, answer route, explanation boundary, accessibility check, and whether the item is live, draft, paused, or removed.
Correction packet
Reporter issue type, source supplied, reviewer decision, affected page, owner, outcome status, and public reply wording.
School evidence packet
What teachers can see, what students can see, which data is aggregated, and how weak-topic intervention is separated from private learner records.
What to include in a report
Issue type
Choose one: Board or specification label, Topic mapping, Source link or provenance, Question wording, Answer or explanation route, Accessibility or SEND wording.
Page URL
Paste the public StudyVector route or describe exactly where the issue appears.
Qualification, subject, board and topic
Include the course context so the route can be checked against the right public specification.
Official source link
Link the relevant public specification, guidance page, past-paper index, or correction source.
Expected correction
Say what should change: update, remove, pause, relabel, or leave unchanged after source check.
Student-data boundary
Use route, source, wording, or question context rather than a learner record.
Do not include student names, diagnoses, private messages, or answer-by-answer logs.
Operating principles
The rules that keep review useful.
Evidence before claim
Public copy should only say what the live route, source link, or product workflow can support today.
Corrections are product work
A valid report should lead to a route update, source update, relabel, pause, removal, or no-change source note.
Independence stays visible
Board-aware practice can be useful without implying approval from an exam board, school, trust, or public body.
Learning remains the centre
Quality review exists to help students answer better questions, teachers target intervention, and families understand progress.
Review checklist
Confirm the route
Check the reported page, qualification, subject, board or specification, and topic before changing content.
Do not treat an external report as endorsement or approval from an exam board.
Cross-check public sources
Compare against public specification pages, published guidance, or the official source link supplied in the report.
Do not copy protected paper text, mark schemes, or future-paper claims into StudyVector content.
Close the loop
Record the decision, affected page, owner, and whether a content fix, wording fix, or no-change response is needed.
Do not promise grade outcomes, official status, or universal coverage beyond what the live route shows.
Correction outcomes
A report ends with a recorded decision.
This keeps the correction path honest. If a route is wrong, it changes. If it is unsupported, it is paused or relabelled. If a report does not require a change, the source check still gets recorded.
Updated
The route, label, source reference, explanation, answer route, or public wording changed after review.
Do not frame the update as endorsement, official approval, or proof that every related route is complete.
Removed or paused
The item is hidden, paused, or removed because the public source does not support the previous route.
Do not keep unsupported board-specific wording live while waiting for a fuller rewrite.
Relabelled
The material remains useful but is relabelled as generic revision, expanding coverage, or a different board route.
Do not use relabelling to preserve a stronger coverage claim than the source evidence supports.
No change after source check
The reported wording matched public source evidence, and the reviewer recorded the source checked.
Do not dismiss the report as endorsement, approval, or a reason to make broader public claims.
Review a specific route, not a vague claim.
Send the page, board or specification, topic, issue type, and public source link. Keep reports focused on content, wording, and route evidence rather than student personal data.