Public specification first
Coverage starts from public specification structures, topic maps, command words, and published route information. Where a route is still expanding, the subject catalogue labels that state instead of hiding it.
Exam-board transparency
Board-aware revision, without pretending to be an exam board.
StudyVector maps revision routes to public GCSE, A-Level, Scottish, international, IB, AP, and admissions-test structures so students can practise the course they actually take. The platform remains independent: exam-board names describe coverage routes, not endorsement.
The positioning is exam specificity over generic AI: qualification, board, subject, topic, and coverage state come before the question route. If that context is missing, StudyVector should ask for it or stay general rather than inventing board-specific guidance.
Original practice, clear provenance
StudyVector questions are original practice items. Past-paper and mark-scheme references are treated as review context or official outbound links, not as permission to relabel content as board-authored.
Correction-ready by design
If a topic map, board label, source reference, or answer route is wrong, the correction path is public. The right response is to fix the material, not to defend weak copy.
The line we will not cross
Alignment is not affiliation.
Students, parents, teachers, schools, and organisations should be able to see exactly what StudyVector means by board-aware practice. The product can be useful without making official-status claims.
Public boundaries
- StudyVector is independent and should not be treated as official exam-board material.
- Exam-board names are used to identify the syllabus route a student selected, not to imply endorsement.
- StudyVector does not publish future papers, official mark schemes, or grade-boundary certainty.
- Official specifications, past papers, examiner reports, access arrangements, and candidate guidance should always be checked on the relevant exam-board website.
Coverage routes
Supported-board labels are visible before practice starts.
The public subject catalogue is the fastest way to check current coverage. Official board sites remain the final source for specifications, papers, access arrangements, and administrative guidance.
AQA
Coverage route: AQA
Edexcel
Coverage route: Edexcel
OCR
Coverage route: OCR
WJEC
Coverage route: WJEC
Eduqas
Coverage route: Eduqas
CCEA
Coverage route: CCEA
Cambridge International (CIE)
Coverage route: CIE
Pearson Edexcel International
Coverage route: Pearson Intl
OxfordAQA International
Coverage route: OxfordAQA
SQA
Coverage route: SQA
IB
Coverage route: IB
AP
Coverage route: AP
Review workflow
How a board-specific route is checked.
- 1.A student or school selects qualification, subject, board, and topic.
- 2.The route shows coverage status and board tags before the student starts practice.
- 3.Questions, explanations, and feedback are checked against the route rather than generic AI output.
- 4.Concerns about mapping, source use, or wording can be sent through the content-quality contact path.
Official sources to cross-check
These are external exam-body websites. They are linked for verification; StudyVector does not control their content.
Awarding-organisation review
What StudyVector can share for a review.
Awarding organisations, schools, trusts, and providers can ask for evidence behind public wording or a specific route. The response should stay factual: show the current route, the public source used, the boundary being checked, and any correction made.
Route and source evidence
The current board or specification route, the public source links used, and whether the route is live, expanding, or not yet covered.
Question-quality controls
The public explanation of how original practice questions are written, reviewed, and separated from official papers or protected mark schemes.
Correction outcomes
For a reported page or question, the team can state whether the material was updated, removed, relabelled, or left unchanged after checking the public source.
Review record fields
A serious review should leave an inspectable record, not a vague assurance or social proof. These fields are designed for internal school, provider, or awarding-organisation checks.
What a review must not become
- Review conversations are not endorsement, approval, partnership, or official-status claims.
- StudyVector does not claim access to confidential future papers, examiner-only material, or grade-boundary certainty.
- If coverage is planned or incomplete, public copy should say that rather than presenting the route as complete.
- Protected official paper text and mark schemes should be linked to on official sites, not copied into StudyVector content.
Correction intake
What to include when reporting a route issue.
Specific reports are easier to check and fix. Include the route, board or specification, topic, source and correction requested so the team can compare the issue with public material.
How the report is reviewed
Confirm the route
Reproduce the route and record whether the issue is a board label, topic map, source link, explanation, or answer route.
Do not treat an external report as endorsement or approval from an exam board.
Cross-check public sources
Update the route, label, source reference, or answer explanation only when the public source supports the change.
Do not copy protected paper text, mark schemes, or future-paper claims into StudyVector content.
Close the loop
Reply with the outcome and, where relevant, the public route or policy page that now reflects the correction.
Do not promise grade outcomes, official status, or universal coverage beyond what the live route shows.
Correction outcomes
How reviewers should close the loop.
Every correction should finish with a recorded outcome: what was checked, what changed, and what public claim boundary still applies. This keeps schools, organisations, and exam-board contacts informed without turning a correction into social proof.
Updated
- Reviewer record
- The route, label, source reference, explanation, answer route, or public wording changed after review.
- Public reply
- Say what changed, link the public route or policy page, and thank the reporter for the correction.
- Boundary
- Do not frame the update as endorsement, official approval, or proof that every related route is complete.
Removed or paused
- Reviewer record
- The item is hidden, paused, or removed because the public source does not support the previous route.
- Public reply
- Say the material has been removed or paused while the route is checked against public sources.
- Boundary
- Do not keep unsupported board-specific wording live while waiting for a fuller rewrite.
Relabelled
- Reviewer record
- The material remains useful but is relabelled as generic revision, expanding coverage, or a different board route.
- Public reply
- Say the label changed so students and schools do not mistake the route for a covered specification.
- Boundary
- Do not use relabelling to preserve a stronger coverage claim than the source evidence supports.
No change after source check
- Reviewer record
- The reported wording matched public source evidence, and the reviewer recorded the source checked.
- Public reply
- Explain the source checked and invite a more specific route or source if the reviewer missed context.
- Boundary
- Do not dismiss the report as endorsement, approval, or a reason to make broader public claims.
For awarding organisations, schools, and review teams
If a StudyVector route uses a board label unclearly, links to the wrong source, or gives an answer route that conflicts with a public specification, send the page and issue. Correction requests are treated as product-quality work.