ACCA AA September 2026: Why "Ensure That" Costs You Half the Marks on Control Deficiencies
Eighteen marks. That was the internal controls requirement in the September/December 2025 AA exam — the single biggest requirement on the paper. Two-thirds of those marks sit in the recommendation and test-of-control columns, and that is exactly where the examining team says candidates keep scoring half.
Where the 18 marks actually sit
The mark scheme for a deficiencies requirement is fixed. Per deficiency: half a mark to identify it, half a mark to explain the implication, 1 mark to recommend a control, 1 mark to describe a test of control. Six deficiencies at 3 marks each gets you to 18.
Read that split again. Spotting the deficiency — the part most students spend the most time on — is worth half of 3. The writing is worth the rest.
Copying the scenario is not identifying a deficiency
In Quirky Quadbikes Co, candidates who wrote "on receipt of goods, the quantities received are checked by a warehouse assistant against the supplier's delivery note" scored nothing for identification. Checking quantities to a delivery note isn't a deficiency — it's a control. The deficiency was that the quality of goods wasn't checked, and the delivery wasn't compared to the purchase order.
CBE copy-and-paste makes this trap worse, not better. A pasted fact is not an identified deficiency.
"This will result in fraud or error" scores nothing
Every deficiency increases fraud and error, so saying it tells the marker nothing. The examiner wants the implication tied to that specific deficiency. For one clerk handling several elements of the cash receipts cycle, you need to explain that the lack of segregation of duties means errors or fraud go undetected on a timely basis. For goods not checked to the order, the implication is poor quality or unwanted goods being received, wasting company resources.
"Ensure that…" is an objective, not a control
Straight from the report: recommendations phrased as "ensure that…" are unlikely to gain much credit. A recommendation has to be an action — who does what, to which document, how often. Repeating the converse of the deficiency isn't enough either.
Worked example
Deficiency: Outstanding customer debts are not chased by the credit controller.
Half-mark answer: "The credit controller should chase outstanding debts."
Full-mark answer: "The credit controller should review the aged receivables listing each month, identify balances past their due date, and contact those customers to request payment."
Same deficiency, same knowledge, one mark apart. The second version just says who, what and how often.
Same trap on the joiner forms deficiency: "joiner forms should be completed for all employees" earned half a mark. Adding "by the HR department" earned the other half.
Tests of control: stop writing "check"
A test that starts with "check" almost never carries enough detail. Name the document and say what you are looking for — "inspect requisition forms for the inclusion of current inventory levels."
Two more traps. The test must be something the auditor does, not advice for management. And inspection or enquiry generally beats observation, so only reach for observation where no better evidence exists.
What to do before September
1. Draft in four columns. Deficiency, implication, recommendation, test. If a cell is blank, or just repeats the cell to its left, you have already lost a mark.
2. Ban the word "ensure". Start every recommendation with a job title and a verb: "The warehouse supervisor should compare…"
3. Work the questions the examiner names. Harper Co (Mar/Jun 25), Granstan Co (Sep/Dec 24), Francisco Co (Mar/Jun 24) and Silver Co (Sep/Dec 23) all test this requirement.
The numbers
AA came in at 47% in June 2026 — the second-lowest pass rate at Applied Skills, behind only PM on 41%. The controls question is the biggest single block of marks on the paper, and almost all of it is exam technique rather than knowledge.
You already know what's wrong with the system. Now write it like an auditor, not like a wish.