ACCA SBL December 2026: Why "Evaluate" Loses You Marks (Examiner Findings)

SBL examiners keep saying the same thing: candidates describe the case instead of evaluating it. If the requirement says "evaluate" and you only restate the exhibit, you are capping your own marks.

What the examiner actually found

In the SBL December 2024 examiner's report, the word "evaluate" appeared in the requirements again and again, yet was largely left unanswered. Candidates described what existed rather than explaining why it mattered to the business.

On the Six Capitals task, many candidates lifted points straight from the exhibits without judging how value was created or lost. Manufacturing capital was the worst-answered: plenty of candidates assumed there was no value because the company doesn't make physical products.

The poorest-performing task was the technology one. Candidates copied the CEO's negative stance from the exhibit instead of challenging it, and missed that the requirement was really testing the professional skill of scepticism. Same problem, different wrapper: agreeing with the case, not evaluating it.

Even on the BCG task, candidates reproduced numbers without saying what they implied. Many labelled ride-hailing a cash cow even though the company's 35% share sat below the leading rival's 50%, so the "relative" share was under 1.

Wrong answer vs right answer

Requirement: Evaluate the CEO's view that the company should ignore driverless technology.

Weak (describe): "The CEO believes driverless cars are too risky and expensive. There are safety concerns and regulation is uncertain. The company should therefore wait."

Strong (evaluate): "The CEO's caution is partly justified: regulation is unclear and capital costs are high. However, waiting exposes the company to a competitor gaining first-mover advantage on cost per journey. The CEO also assumes the company controls the timing, but the local authority decides which technologies are permitted, so the real risk is being unprepared when it does. I recommend a low-cost pilot rather than ignoring the technology."

The strong answer has a judgement, a counter-argument, a scenario fact and a recommendation. The weak answer has none of them.

What to do

1. Turn every exhibit fact into a "so what". After each point, add "which means..." and finish the sentence. If you can't, the point is description and should be cut.

2. Challenge one thing in every answer. Pick a claim from a senior character in the case and test it. This is scepticism, and it is often where the professional skills marks sit.

3. Balance your coverage. Examiners penalised answers with pages on one technology and a line on the rest. Plan the marks per point before you type.

The bottom line

SBL is not a test of what you know. It's a test of what you make of the case. Describe it and you'll scrape a pass at best. Evaluate it and the marks follow.

Your next practice answer: delete every sentence that could have been copied from the exhibit.