ACCA SBL June 2026: 5 Exam Mistakes From the December 2025 Sitting (Don't Repeat Them)

SBL passed 52% of candidates in March 2026. The December 2025 examiner's report is explicit about why the other 48% failed — and the same mistakes appear in every single sitting.

If you're sitting SBL in June 2026, this report is mandatory reading. Not because the scenarios repeat, but because the errors do. Here's what the December 2025 examining team actually found, with specific examples — and what to do instead.

Mistake 1: Answering a Different Question to the One Asked

This was the single biggest reason for failure, and it showed up in multiple tasks. Task 1(b) asked candidates how risks relating to the integration of Dulit and Levwell hotels could be mitigated. The majority of candidates wrote about what the risks were instead. These are not the same question. Describing a risk earns no marks when the requirement asks for mitigation strategies.

Task 2(b) asked candidates to evaluate stakeholders' power and interest in relation to the success of the acquisition. Most candidates assessed power and interest in relation to the routine operations of the hotels — a completely different context. The examiner notes this was "particularly noticeable" and "demonstrates poor exam technique."

The fix: Before writing a single word, copy the task requirement into your answer area and underline the key verb and its object. "How could risks be mitigated?" is a different question to "What are the risks?" Read it. Answer it. Only it.

Mistake 2: Copy-Pasting Exhibit Content Scores Zero Marks

The examiner is unambiguous: sections of text copied and pasted from the exhibits earn no marks. This was flagged across Task 1(a), Task 2(a), and Task 2(b) in December 2025. In Task 1(a), candidates copied descriptions of Dulit hotels from Exhibit 1 — written by Dulit's chair using "we" and "our" — and pasted them into a report for Levwell's CEO. The references to "we" now incorrectly described Dulit as if it were Levwell. No marks, plus a professional skills penalty for tone.

In Task 2(b), candidates reproduced stakeholder concerns from Exhibit 3 without applying them to evaluate power and interest in the acquisition. Again: no marks.

The fix: Treat exhibits as raw material, not answer content. Every point you make must add something: an implication, a consequence, a relevance to the specific task. If you're describing what the exhibit says, you're not earning marks. If you're explaining what it means for the decision at hand, you are.

Mistake 3: One-Mark Points When Two Are Available

Throughout the SBL exam, up to two marks are available for well-developed points. The examiner makes clear what earns the second mark: evaluating the significance of a point, explaining its consequences for the organisation, or supporting it with specific case material. Many candidates in December 2025 made only surface-level points, collecting single marks where they could have collected two.

In Task 1(a), candidates noted that Dulit's operating profit margin had declined from 10.2% to 8.4%. That's a one-mark point. A two-mark point explains the implications: a declining margin suggests cost control problems or pricing pressure, which raises questions about whether Dulit can sustain profitability post-acquisition — and whether Levwell should factor in integration costs that could compress margins further.

The fix: After every point, ask "so what?" If you can answer that question with something specific to the scenario, write it. That's your second mark.

Mistake 4: Generic Answers That Could Apply to Any Company

Task 3(a) asked candidates how to manage the change process at Levwell specifically during the implementation of a new hotel management system. Many answers discussed the importance of communication and training in general change management terms — points that could apply to any organisation in any sector in any situation.

The exhibit had made clear that staff at another hotel chain had struggled to learn the same system. Better candidates used this: they recommended bringing in external trainers from the software company, directly addressing the demonstrated learning difficulty. This is the difference between a generic 5/10 and a passing mark on that task.

The fix: If your answer could appear word-for-word in a response about a manufacturing company, a hospital, or a tech start-up, it's too generic. Every point you make should reference something specific: the organisation's name, a figure from the exhibits, a situation described in the scenario.

Mistake 5: Basic Financial Analysis Errors

A "surprisingly high number" of candidates made errors on financial analysis that cost marks across multiple tasks. Two errors were flagged repeatedly. First, candidates stated that loan interest would reduce operating profit — but operating profit is calculated before interest and tax. Interest affects net profit, not operating profit. This error appeared in both Task 1(a) and Task 2(a).

Second, candidates stated that a rights issue would not affect gearing. It does — it increases equity, which reduces the gearing ratio. Candidates may have meant it would not increase gearing (correct), but stating it would have no effect at all is incorrect.

The fix: Review your financial analysis fundamentals before June. Operating profit = revenue minus operating costs. Interest comes below that line. Rights issues change equity. If these distinctions aren't automatic, they will cost you marks at Strategic Professional level.

The Professional Skills Point Nobody Talks About

Task 1(a) tested scepticism. A higher proportion of candidates than in previous exams responded by phrasing points as questions: "Don't you think we need to understand the reason for the revenue decline?" The examiner is explicit that this weakens answers and reduces professional skills marks. Scepticism means making critical assessments based on evidence — not asking questions for someone else to answer. Write statements that probe and evaluate. Leave the rhetorical questions for your study group.

What the Data Says

SBL's March 2026 pass rate was 52% — the joint highest among Strategic Professional papers alongside SBR. Yet the December 2025 examiner's report reads like a list of avoidable errors. The same issues have appeared in multiple consecutive examiner reports: not answering the task set, copying exhibits, failing to develop points. These are not knowledge problems. They are exam technique problems. Fix the technique before June, and the knowledge you already have will do its job.