Post results

This guidance covers the following qualifications:

• WJEC Level 3 Applied qualifications 
• AQA Applied General qualifications
• AQA Level 2 Certificate in Further Maths
• AQA Level 3 Certificate in Mathematical Studies
• BTEC Firsts, BTEC Nationals, BTEC Tech Awards
• Cambridge Nationals
• Cambridge Technicals
• City & Guilds Level 2 and Level 3 Technical qualifications
• FSMQ
• GCE AS and A-level
• GCSE
• NCFE Level 1, 2 and 3 Vocational (Technical Award) qualifications
• NCFE Level 3 Diploma/Extended Diplomas (external assessment only)
• OCR Level 3 Certificates
• Projects (including Extended Project)
• T-Levels (Technical qualifications)
• TQUK Design, Engineer and Construct qualifications
• WJEC Level 1 and Level 2 General qualifications
• WJEC Level 1 and Level 2 Vocational qualifications
• WJEC Level 1 and Level 2 Vocational Awards (Technical Awards)

1.1 This document contains three sections:

• Section One: provides an overview of the post-results services process.
• Section Two: refers to Reviews of Results (clerical re-check, review of marking and appeals).
• Section Three: refers to Access to Scripts.

1.2 This document sets out the common arrangements for post-results services. However, awarding bodies may offer additional post-results services. As the awarding bodies will publish their own administrative guidelines on post-results services, please read this document together with the information issued by the awarding bodies. Centres should refer to awarding bodies’ websites.

1.3 This document does not cover missing and incomplete results (MIRs) which are reported as:

• ‘No Result’ (X);
• ‘Partial Absence’ (e.g. D#);
• ‘Pending’ (Q).

To query such a result, please refer to the relevant documentation supplied by the individual awarding body.

The awarding body will investigate the query and will report the outcome without charge. Most queries can be resolved on the designated results day through processing checks.

1.4 Candidates following unitised GCSE, GCE AS and GCE A-level specifications in Wales and Northern Ireland who have achieved enough unit results for a qualification award, but have not claimed certification, may do so retrospectively through their centre. The centre must submit the request to the relevant awarding body before the published deadline for the series concerned. Each awarding body will publish its own administrative guidelines, which will detail the method of submitting requests and any fee for this service.

1.5 Where a centre has concerns about the marking of a component, reviews should be submitted as soon as possible for all candidates who wish to request a review. This will enable the awarding body to take a holistic view of the quality of marking and initiate any investigative action in a timely fashion. Candidates must provide their written consent for reviews of marking.

1.6 Where reference is made to a ‘script’ in this document, this means the work submitted by a candidate as part of an externally assessed component, i.e. a hard copy or electronic examination script.

Important: Awarding bodies strongly advise candidates and/or their centres to inform their university or college choices that a review of results has been requested. By informing them, they may be able to keep the candidate’s place open until the review has been completed.

An awarding body will not inform UCAS or others that a review of marking has been requested. However, it will advise UCAS of any grade change arising from a review. Full details on the guidance provided by UCAS may be found at:

https://www.ucas.com/undergraduate/results-confirmation-and-clearing/results/exam-reviews-and-appeals.

For the for the June 2025 and November 2025 series

2.1 To enable awarding bodies to provide an efficient service, centres must meet the following deadlines. Requests mustbe submitted to awarding bodies by the relevant deadline.

Centres must submit requests online via the awarding bodies’ extranet sites.

2.2 Key dates and deadlines for the June 2025 series

Key date	Reviews of Results (RoRs)	Access to Scripts (ATS)
14 August	• Issue of GCE AS and A-level results
• Issue of Extended Project results
• Issue of Level 3 VTQ results
• Clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and reviews of moderation may be requested now	GCE AS, A-level and Level 3 VTQ scripts
• Centres may request copies of GCE AS, A-level and Level 3 VTQ scripts to support reviews of marking and/or teaching and learning
21 August	• Issue of GCSE results
• Issue of Foundation and Higher Project results
• Issue of Level 1 & Level 2 VTQ results
• Clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and reviews of moderation may be requested now	GCSE and Level 1 & Level 2 VTQ scripts
• Centres may request copies of GCSE and Level 1 & Level 2 VTQ scripts to support reviews of marking and/or teaching and learning
21 August	• DEADLINE for awarding bodies to receive requests for Priority Service 2 reviews of marking (GCE A-level and Level 3 VTQ qualifications only)
20 September	• DEADLINE for awarding bodies to receive requests for late subject awards (Unitised GCSE, GCE AS and A-level qualifications in Wales and Northern Ireland)
25 September	• DEADLINE for Reviews of Results (RoRs): Last date for awarding bodies to receive requests (All qualifications)	• DEADLINE for copies of scripts to support teaching and learning (All qualifications)
Please see individual awarding bodies’ websites for further information.

For CCEA deadlines for copies of GCE AS, A-level and GCSE scripts to support reviews of marking, please see Post-Results Support | CCEA.

For key dates relating to NCFE T-Levels and deadlines for review of results services please see:
https://www.ncfe.org.uk/qualifications/centre-assessment-support/results-queries/

For key dates and post-results see TQUK’s Design, Engineer, Construct qualifications.

2.3 Key dates and deadlines for the GCSE November 2025 examination series
The deadline for Review of Results Services (RoRs) is 12 February 2026.

2.4 Requests received after the respective closing date will not be processed.
Further information can be found in section 4.5 – Acknowledgement.

2.5 Where results have been issued after the normal publication date, the closing date for requests will be extended by the same period as the delay.

2.6 The receipt of scripts may be delayed if a centre has requested a review of marking in the same unit/component.

3.1 Fees for post-results services (Access to Scripts, clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and reviews of moderation) are set and published independently by each awarding body.

4.1 Centre responsibilities

4.1.1 Relevant centre staff must be fully aware of the post-results process, including the published deadlines for clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and reviews of moderation.

Centres must make candidates aware of the arrangements for clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and reviews of moderation prior to the issue of results. Candidates must be provided with written information on the arrangements.

Senior members of centre staff must be available to candidates immediately after the publication of results so that results may be discussed and decisions made on the submission of reviews of marking. Candidates must be informed of the periods during which centre staff will be available so that they may plan accordingly.

For internal candidates, awarding bodies will only accept requests for reviews of marking from centres and not from candidates or their parents. Centres must ensure that they have a process in place for internal candidates to appeal the centre’s decision not to pursue a review of marking.

Private candidates are encouraged to submit requests for reviews of marking via their centre. However, they may submit a request directly to an awarding body. Private candidates are identified by the centre when submitting entries. Awarding bodies will use this information to validate requests that come directly from candidates. The awarding body will advise private candidates of the process for reviews of marking.

4.2 Candidate consent

4.2.1 Centres must obtain written candidate consent for clerical re-checks and reviews of marking, as with these services candidates’ marks and subject grades may be lowered. Failure to do so is considered centre malpractice.

Candidate consent for clerical re-checks and reviews of marking must be obtained after the publication of results.

• Candidates must be informed that their marks and subject grades could go down as well as up and must provide their written consent before a request is submitted. (A suggested form for centres to use is included as Appendix A. Written consent from the candidate is also acceptable by email.)
• An online request provides confirmation to the awarding body that the candidate’s written consent has been obtained. (The submission of a signed request form does likewise.)
• Consent forms or emails from candidates must be retained by the centre and kept for at least six months following the outcome of the clerical re-check or review of marking or any subsequent appeal. The awarding bodies reserve the right to request such documentation.

4.2.2 Written candidate consent is not required for a review of moderation. Candidates’ marks may be lowered but their published subject grades will not be lowered in the series concerned. However, centres should be aware that a lowered mark may be carried forward to future certification. For example, if a non-examination assessment mark which contributes to an AS award (unitised GCE AS qualification) is lowered because of a review of moderation, the AS grade will be protected, but the lowered mark will contribute to any subsequent A-level award (unitised GCE A-level qualification).

Centres must therefore ensure that candidates are made aware that a mark for an NEA component may be lowered, which could affect future certification.

4.3 Review of Results services

4.3.1 Service 1 (Clerical re-check)

• Submit the request online.
• Candidate consent is required and must be held on file by the centre (see section 4.2).
• The request must be received by the awarding body by 25 September 2025.
• The deadline for completion is within 10 calendar days of the awarding body receiving the request.

This service will include the following checks:

• that all parts of the script have been marked;
• the totalling of marks;
• the recording of marks.

The outcome of the clerical re-check will be reported along with a statement of the total marks awarded for each unit, or component, included in the enquiry.

For multiple choice tests only, Service 1 re-checks can be requested.

4.3.2 Service 2 (Review of marking)

This is a post-results review of the original marking to ensure that the mark scheme has been applied correctly.

A marking error can occur because of:

• an administrative error;
• a failure to apply the mark scheme where a task has only a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer;
• an unreasonable exercise of academic judgement.

The awarding body will train its reviewers to conduct reviews of marking accurately and consistently. Reviewers will notre-mark the script. They will only act to correct any errors identified in the original marking.

The service is available for externally assessed components of both unitised and linear GCE AS, A-level and GCSE specifications. It is also available for Level 1, 2 and 3 Vocational Technical Qualifications.

• Submit the request online.
• Candidate consent is required and must be held on file by the centre (see section 4.2).
• The request must be submitted to the awarding body by 25 September 2025.
• The deadline for completion is within 20 calendar days of the awarding body receiving the request.

This service will include:

• the clerical re-checks detailed in Service 1;
• a review of marking as described above.

Where a centre is concerned about the marking of an entire centre cohort, please refer to section 4.7.

Centres are strongly advised to submit requests for reviews of marking for any candidate, by subject, for whom they have concerns at the earliest opportunity. This should include all components/units, looking at the subject, where the centre considers a marking error may have occurred. The awarding body will then be able to take a holistic view of the quality of marking and initiate any investigative action in a timely fashion.

Changes to candidates’ results arising from a review of marking cannot lead to a subsequent late request for a review of moderation.

4.3.3 Priority Service 2 (Review of marking)

The service is available for externally assessed components of both unitised and linear GCE AS, A-level specifications. It is also available for Level 3 Vocational Technical Qualifications. For NCFE this service only applies to T-levels.

This is a priority review of the original marking to ensure that the mark scheme has been applied correctly.

A marking error can occur because of:

• an administrative error;
• a failure to apply the mark scheme where a task has only a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer;
• an unreasonable exercise of academic judgement.

The awarding body will train its reviewers to conduct reviews of marking accurately and consistently. Reviewers will notre-mark the script. They will only act to correct any errors identified in the original marking.

• Submit the request online.

Important: Awarding bodies strongly advise candidates and/or their centres to inform their university or college choices that a review of results has been requested. By informing them, they may be able to keep the candidate’s place open until the review has been completed.

An awarding body will not inform UCAS or others that a review of marking has been requested. However, it will advise UCAS of any grade change arising from a review. Full details on the guidance provided by UCAS may be found at:

https://www.ucas.com/undergraduate/results-confirmation-and-clearing/results/exam-reviews-and-appeals

---

• Candidate consent is required and must be held on file by the centre (see section 4.2).
• The request must be submitted to the awarding body no later than 21 August 2025 (seven days after the publication of GCE A-level and Level 3 VTQ results).
• The deadline for completion is within 15 calendar days of the awarding body receiving the request.

Centres are strongly advised to submit requests for reviews of marking for any candidate, by subject, for whom they have concerns at the earliest opportunity. This is particularly so regarding priority reviews of marking where the candidates’ university or college may be at stake. This should include all components/units, looking at the subject as a whole, where the centre considers a marking error has occurred. The awarding body will then be able to take a holistic view of the quality of marking and initiate any investigative action in a timely fashion.

If a GCE A-level or Level 3 VTQ candidate is thinking of having a Priority Service 2 review of marking, please refer to the relevant awarding body’s website to understand the implications of requesting a copy of the script.

4.3.4 Service 3 (Review of moderation)

This is a review of the original moderation to ensure that the assessment criteria have been fairly, reliably and consistently applied. It is not a re-moderation of candidates’ work. The awarding body will have trained its reviewers to conduct reviews of moderation accurately and consistently.

Please note that if your centre’s internally assessed marks (coursework or non-examination assessment) have been accepted without change by an awarding body, this service will not be available.

• Submit the request online.
• Candidate consent is not required (see section 4.2).
• The request must be submitted to the awarding body by 25 September 2025.
• The deadline for completion is up to 35 calendar days after the reviewer has received the original sample of work from the centre. This is due to the complexities of the process, such as co-ordination between the centre and the moderator.
• Centres should inform Level 3 candidates that reviews of moderation may not necessarily be completed to meet individual universities’ deadlines.
• The review of moderation will be undertaken on the original sample of candidates’ work.
• A review of moderation cannot be undertaken upon the work of an individual candidate or the work of candidates not in the original sample.

A review of moderation cannot be undertaken where a mark for an internally assessed component has been transferred to a subsequent series.

Centres that are in possession of the original sample of work must ensure it is ready for despatch. They will be provided with details of a reviewer to whom the work should be sent. Centre assessed work must not be sent at the time of submitting the review of moderation.

Work submitted for a review of moderation must:

• be despatched to the reviewer within three working days following the receipt of instructions from the awarding body. Failure to meet this may delay the outcome of the review or result in the review being cancelled;
• be the original work submitted for moderation;
• have been kept under secure conditions and not returned to the candidates.

This service cannot be undertaken on ephemeral material unless suitable evidence (such as the media recording of theatrical performances) can be provided.

Centres should note that there may be a need for them to retain a copy of the work if a candidate intends to re-submit work at the next assessment opportunity.

Centres operating as part of a consortium must submit requests on behalf of all centres within the consortium. Individual centres within the consortium cannot request a review of moderation solely on their own behalf.

Changes to candidates’ results arising from a review of moderation cannot lead to a subsequent late request for a review of marking of a written examination component.

4.4 Submission of requests

Centres must submit requests online via the awarding bodies’ extranet sites.

4.4.1 Concerns about errors in the original marking can only be addressed through the published post-results services.

4.4.2 Where a centre is unable to use an awarding body’s extranet site, the centre must contact the individual awarding body immediately by telephone.

4.4.3 Letters of concern cannot be accepted as requests. Where centres have concerns, the published post-results services must be used. Centres must not submit letters of concern with their requests.

4.4.4 All requests for internal candidates must be submitted (and thus supported by the centre) by an authorised member of centre staff. Before submitting a request, centres should check all details are correct, including candidate name, number and component code.

Requests for private candidates may either be submitted through the centre or submitted directly to an awarding body.

Awarding bodies will not accept requests submitted by any other individuals, e.g. by parents/carers. Awarding bodies will only enter into discussions regarding internal candidates with centres.

4.4.5 Centres must have in place a published formal appeals procedure for use in cases where centres and candidates, or their parents/carers, cannot agree as to whether a review of results should be submitted. The formal appeals procedure must be made widely available. Centres must, therefore, draw the appeals procedure to the attention of candidates and their parents/carers. In deciding whether to support a review of results, centres should take account of all relevant factors and allow candidates or their parents/carers a reasonable opportunity to express their views. Centres are encouraged to extend the formal appeals procedure to any private candidates.

4.4.6 Candidates must provide their written consent for clerical re-checks and reviews of marking after the publication of results (see section 4.2).

4.4.7 Requests for unissued subjects must be made within the enquiry period immediately following the publication of results for the unit(s). Requests cannot be made retrospectively for previous series.

4.4.8 Please see awarding body contact points (page ii) for details of submitting requests to awarding bodies.

4.4.9 Awarding bodies may not cancel an enquiry after submission.

4.5 Acknowledgement

4.5.1 All requests will be acknowledged within 7 working days.

4.5.2 If an acknowledgement is not received within this period, centres should presume that the request has not been received and must contact the awarding body immediately. Centres should also regularly check the progress of the request.

4.5.3 If contact is not made until after the deadline for submission of post-results services, the awarding body is not obliged to proceed with the request.

4.6 Outcome of reviews

4.6.1 The outcome of each review will be confirmed by the respective awarding body.

4.6.2 The awarding body will provide a reason for the decision of a review of marking.
If the mark has changed, the reason will either be that an administrative error has occurred or there was a marking error. A marking error would occur where an examiner has not correctly applied the mark scheme or any other relevant procedure, i.e.

• if the ‘right’ mark was not given in a task where there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ mark;
• if there has been an unreasonable exercise of academic judgement†.

4.6.3 There are three possible outcomes arising from a review of moderation:

• no change to the original moderation decision;
• a correction to the original moderation decision;
• reinstatement of centre marks.

For the first two outcomes awarding bodies will provide a reason.

4.6.4 Where a grade changes and a certificate has previously been issued, the centre must return the certificate to the awarding body and a replacement will be provided showing the revised grade.

4.6.5 UCAS will be advised of any changes to GCE and Level 3 VTQ grades. Centres must familiarise themselves with UCAS arrangements:
https://www.ucas.com/advisers/?title=tile-471

4.6.6 Where there has been a reduction in marks or a downgrade following a review of marking, the request cannot be revoked and the original mark or grade will not be reinstated.

4.7 Centre concern about the marking of a cohort

4.7.1 If a centre has concerns about one of its component/subject cohorts, then it should submit requests for reviews of marking for all candidates they believe to be affected. This will enable the awarding body to take a holistic view of the quality of marking and initiate any investigative action in a timely fashion.

4.7.2 Centres must obtain written candidate consent for reviews of marking after the publication of results, as with these services candidates’ marks and subject grades may be lowered.

• Candidates must be informed of this possible outcome and provide their written consent before an application is submitted.
• A suggested form for centres to use is included as Appendix A. Written consent from the candidate is also acceptable by email.

† An academic judgement is what is involved when assessing. It is possible for different examiners reasonably to reach different judgements. Unreasonableness in academic judgement occurs where the mark given is one that no reasonable examiner could properly have awarded.

• Consent forms or emails from candidates must be retained by the centre and kept for at least six months following the outcome of the review of marking or any subsequent appeal. The awarding bodies reserve the right to inspect such documentation.
• An online request provides confirmation to the awarding body that the candidate’s written consent has been obtained. The submission of a signed request form does likewise.

4.7.3 An awarding body is obliged to take further investigative action if there is a significant trend in under- or over-marking.

4.7.4 Where an awarding body initiates investigative action, candidates’ marks and subject grades are not automatically protected. Candidates’ marks and subject grades may, therefore, be lowered, confirmed or raised.

4.8 Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks – unitised GCE AS, A-level and GCSE specifications

4.8.1 An explanation of how uniform marks are calculated may be found on awarding body websites. However, the following points may be helpful.

• Raw marks are the marks that are recorded by examiners – the maximum raw mark differs according to the unit/component.
• Candidates’ results in unitised subjects are reported as uniform marks – these are fixed for all units/components with equal weighting.
• Uniform marks are calculated from raw marks.
• There will not necessarily be an obvious direct relationship between raw and uniform marks.
• Small variations in raw marks may, in some circumstances, lead to larger UMS differences.
• Awarding bodies will monitor the outcome of reviews of marking in terms of raw marks and not uniform marks.

4.9 Candidate malpractice

4.9.1 If candidate malpractice is discovered during a review of marking or a review of moderation, the script/coursework/non-examination assessment will be processed in accordance with the JCQ document Suspected Malpractice – Policies and Procedures. Candidates may lose some or all of their marks, consequently affecting grades awarded.

5.1 The appeals process is available to centres and private candidates after receiving the outcome of a review of results. Reference should be made to the JCQ document A guide to the awarding bodies’ appeals process. This document provides full details of the awarding bodies’ appeals processes and the associated timescales. It is available on the JCQ website:

http://www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/appeals

5.2 Appeals can only be submitted after the outcome of a review of results has been reported to the centre.

An appeal against a review of moderation decision cannot be made on behalf of an individual candidate.

5.3 In the case of internal candidates, only the head of centre can submit an appeal to the relevant awarding body.

5.4 Appeals must be made in writing and clearly state the grounds for appeal.

5.5 Awarding bodies may charge a fee for appeals. This fee will be refunded if the appeal is upheld.

---

Centres must have in place a published formal appeals procedure for use in cases where centres and candidates, or their parents/carers, cannot agree as to whether an appeal should be submitted to the relevant awarding body. The formal appeals procedure must be made widely available. Centres must, therefore, draw the appeals procedure to the attention of candidates and their parents/carers.

In deciding whether to support an appeal, centres should take account of all relevant factors and allow candidates or their parents/carers a reasonable opportunity to express their views. In relation to internal candidates, awarding bodies can only enter into discussions over appeals with centres. Awarding bodies will accept appeals directly from private candidates.

Centres may request copies of scripts to support:

• reviews of marking; and/or
• teaching and learning.

Centres must submit requests online via the awarding bodies’ extranet sites.

Information on deadlines for Access to Scripts will be found on awarding bodies’ websites. Centres should be aware that reviews of marking will not be available after 25 September 2025 regardless of when the script was accessed.

Centre staff must be fully aware of the guidelines controlling these arrangements.

Centres must make candidates aware of the arrangements for access to scripts prior to the issue of results.

Centres must submit a request on behalf of a private candidate when asked to do so.

6.1 Arrangements for access to marked examination scripts

6.1.1 Awarding bodies will provide access to marked scripts for the following qualifications:

• GCE AS and A-level
• GCSE
• Level 1, 2 and 3 Vocational Technical Qualifications. This service is not available for City & Guilds Level 2 and Level 3 Technical qualifications. It is also not available for TQUK Design, Engineer and Construct! qualifications.

6.1.2 A ‘script’ means the work submitted by a candidate as part of an externally assessed component, i.e. a hard copy or electronic examination script.

6.1.3 Additional information on the interpretation of marked examination scripts may be found on awarding bodies’ websites.

6.2 Conditions of the Access to Scripts (ATS) service

Unless otherwise stated, references to ‘candidates’ includes both internal candidates and private candidates. Awarding bodies will only release copies of scripts to centres under the following conditions.

6.2.1 Prior written permission must be obtained from any candidate where the centre intends to request their script(s).

This permission must only be sought after the candidates have received their results for the respective examination series. Candidates who grant their permission have the right to anonymity of their scripts before use.

A suggested form for centres to use when seeking a candidate’s written permission to request and use their scripts is included as Appendix B. Written consent from the candidate is also acceptable by email.

6.2.2 Scripts must only be seen by teachers who are members of staff at that centre, or within a consortium of centres, or returned directly to candidates.

6.3 Copies of scripts to support reviews of marking

6.3.1 Centres will be able to request copies of GCE AS, A-level, GCSE and Level 1, 2 and 3 VTQ scripts before deciding whether to request a review of marking.

If a GCE A-level or Level 3 VTQ candidate is thinking of having a Priority Service 2 review of marking, please refer to the relevant awarding body’s website to understand the implications of requesting a copy of the script.

6.3.2 A centre that requires a copy of the script which has been subject to either a clerical re-check or a review of marking should refer to the relevant awarding body’s website for further information.

6.4 Copies of scripts to support teaching and learning

6.4.1 Please refer to awarding bodies’ websites for availability of copies of scripts to support teaching and learning.

6.5 Mark schemes

6.5.1 A copy of the relevant mark scheme will be made available to centres by the awarding body, normally after the publication of results.

6.6 Disposal of scripts

6.6.1 Where teachers have used copies of candidates’ scripts for teaching and learning purposes but no longer wish to retain them, they must ensure that the scripts are disposed of in a confidential manner.

6.6.2 With the exception of archive material, awarding bodies do not keep candidates’ responses indefinitely. This includes examination scripts and electronic script images.

6.7 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

6.7.1 Information recorded by candidates in examination scripts is exempt from Subject Access Requests under the provisions of the UK GDPR.

Clerical re-checks, reviews of marking and appeals – Candidate consent form.

Candidate consent for clerical re-checks and reviews of marking must be obtained after the publication of results.

Candidates must be informed that their marks and subject grades could go down as well as up and must provide their written consent before a request is submitted.

Centres can use the example candidate content form below.

Written consent from the candidate is also acceptable by email. An online request provides confirmation to the awarding body that the candidate’s written consent has been obtained. (The submission of a signed request form does likewise.)

Candidate consent form for access to and use of exam scripts

Prior written permission must be obtained from any candidate where the centre intends to request their script(s). This permission must only be sought after the candidates have received their results for the respective examination series. Candidates who grant their permission have the right to anonymity of their scripts before use.

Centres can use the suggested form when seeking a candidate’s written permission to request and use their scripts. Written consent from the candidate is also acceptable by email.