ACCA PM September 2026: Why Restating Your Calculations Scores Zero in the 15-Mark Analysis
The marker already paid you for the calculation in part (a). Saying the same number again in part (b) earns you nothing. That single habit is why candidates walk out of PM certain they nailed the 15-mark analysis and open a 44 in October.
The examiner wrote the zero-scoring sentence out for you
In the Sept/Dec 2025 sitting, Klen Co gave candidates a balanced scorecard question: 5 marks for calculating the measures in part (a), then 15 marks for analysing performance in part (b). The examining team then did something unusually blunt. They printed a sentence and told you it scores nothing:
"The percentage of machines with defects has fallen from 0.69% in 20X4, to 0.64% in 20X5."
That is a correct, accurate, well-presented statement. It scores zero in part (b) — because it restates the calculation you were already paid for in part (a). The examiner's words: to earn written analysis marks, you need "some comment on the significance of these figures."
Analysis means a comparator, not an adjective
Here is the difference the examining team highlighted, using Klen's revenue.
Weak answer (scores little or nothing): "Klen has done badly against its growth objective due to a decline in revenue."
Strong answer: "Although Klen has seen a decline in revenue of 9.1%, and therefore is not meeting its objective for growth, the market has declined by 11.9% and therefore Klen is beating the market. This is further supported by the increase in market share."
Same data. Same candidate knowledge. The second one has a comparator — and it flips the conclusion from "bad" to "outperforming in a downturn." Klen's scenario handed you an economic downturn precisely so you would use it. If you ignored the context and called a 9.1% revenue fall "poor performance," you argued against the evidence.
The three free marks almost nobody takes
Klen part (b) carried a note: a maximum of 3 marks for additional calculations, 1 mark each. That is 3 of 15 marks sitting there for arithmetic. The catch the examiner flags: figures already given in the scenario earn nothing if you recalculate them. The market decline of 11.9% was the calculation worth having — because it turns into a comparator, which then turns into analysis marks. One number, three ways paid.
The other repeated failure is answering a different question. In the same exam, Kaylene Co part (c)(ii) asked for the implications of a volume change on the weighted average C/S ratio and the CVP analysis. The most common mistake was discussing the effect on Kaylene in general. The requirement named two specific measures. Answers that discussed the business broadly missed them.
Worked example: same fact, two answers
Take a customer-perspective measure — on-time deliveries up from 91% to 94%.
Wrong: "On-time delivery has improved from 91% to 94%, which is good." (Restatement plus an adjective. Nothing.)
Right: "On-time delivery rose from 91% to 94% despite a 9.1% revenue fall, suggesting the improvement came from spare capacity rather than better logistics — so it may reverse when volumes recover. It does, however, support the customer-retention objective and helps explain the market share gain noted in the financial perspective."
That answer links two scorecard perspectives, questions whether the improvement is sustainable, and ties back to a stated objective. That is what 15 marks looks like.
What to do before 7 September
1. Sit Klen Co and Kaylene Co on the ACCA Practice Platform, then mark part (b) with a highlighter. Highlight every sentence that only repeats a number. Whatever is left unhighlighted is your actual score. Most candidates are shocked.
2. Write to a fixed sentence shape: figure, comparator, so what. Every analysis point gets a benchmark — prior year, the market, the target, or another perspective on the scorecard. No comparator, no mark.
3. Build every answer in the spreadsheet, not by typing figures in. The examiner is explicit: typed answers risk entry errors, rounding errors, and lost workings, which kills own-figure credit. Kaylene specified three decimal places and one decimal place. Ignoring rounding instructions loses marks for nothing.
The bottom line
PM passed 41% in June 2026 — the lowest of the Applied Skills papers, below AA at 47% and FR at 52%. It is not a knowledge problem. The candidates failing PM can calculate a C/S ratio, a variance and a scorecard measure perfectly well. They just spend the discussion marks describing the maths instead of using it.
September entry closed on 3 August and the exams run 7–11 September. You have four weeks. Every number in your answer needs something to be compared to — otherwise you're just reading the spreadsheet aloud.