If learners have already received an assessment containing an error, preserve the material as issued, identify who may be affected and escalate promptly. Prevent further use where you are authorised to do so, and make sure results are not released prematurely while the issue is reviewed. Record the evidence and the authorised decision rather than quietly replacing the file or choosing a remedy on the spot.
For an externally awarded qualification, contact the awarding organisation immediately and follow its instructions. Its authority to determine the response is different from the centre’s responsibility to report the problem and supply evidence. For an assessment owned entirely by your organisation, use your own assessment and quality assurance procedures.
A fictional example: the missing table
A training centre has released a vocational assessment asking learners to recommend a supplier using figures in Table 2. A tutor notices that Table 2 is missing from the PDF issued to learners. Some have submitted work; others may still be working. No results have been released.
The team does not know whether every learner received the same version, whether a modified format contains the table, or how much the omission affected their answers. The issue may also have diverted time from other questions. These are questions to investigate, not assumptions to record as facts.
1. Contain the issue and preserve the evidence
Tell the assessment lead and, for an awarded qualification, contact the awarding organisation immediately. If an assessment is in progress, seek urgent instructions rather than interrupting it, supplying the table or changing conditions on your own initiative.
- Preserve the issued PDF unchanged, with its version, release time and a secure reference to where it is held. Keep the source file and any modified versions separately.
- Record where the missing table was expected and which tasks depend on it. Keep relevant submissions and contemporaneous reports, subject to your organisation’s secure handling rules.
- Where your role and the assessment rules permit, stop the affected version being issued to further learners. Check the result-release arrangements and agree any hold with the appropriate authority.
- Do not overwrite the original, instruct markers to disregard the question, or issue a corrected file as though everyone had received it.
Ofqual’s guidance for schools and colleges on the qualifications it covers says to contact the relevant awarding organisation immediately if an error is suspected, including in a modified paper. Its guidance applies to England; check the relevant requirements for your qualification and location. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-people-working-in-schools-and-colleges-need-to-know-about-the-exam-and-assessment-season/what-people-working-in-schools-and-colleges-need-to-know-about-the-exam-and-assessment-season))
2. Establish who may be affected
Build a provisional list using release records, attendance or access information, submissions and session details. Distinguish learners who received the affected version from those who started, submitted or are due to take it. A download or access record alone does not establish exactly what a learner read or how their performance was affected.
Check standard and modified formats, different sittings, other delivery sites and any versions distributed through another route. If the awarding organisation owns the assessment, it may need to investigate beyond your centre. Share the facts you have through its approved channel; do not wait for a complete investigation before reporting.
In the example, the centre records that 24 learners were assigned the PDF and 12 had submitted by the time the error was noticed. These are fictional figures. The team still needs to establish which version each learner received and whether the remaining learners had started.
3. Escalate, then record the decision
Send the awarding organisation the assessment and version identifiers, the missing-table location, discovery time, known distribution and submission details, and any immediate risks. Ask who will decide the response, what the centre should do while waiting, when an update is expected and what may be communicated to learners.
Do not promise a resit, extra marks or a particular outcome. Ofqual’s 2025 delivery report describes different responses depending on when an error is found. Before an assessment, an awarding organisation might issue replacement materials or an erratum. After an assessment, it might analyse responses or adjust a mark scheme; other measures may be considered where appropriate. The report covers regulated qualifications in England, and it does not prescribe one remedy for every case. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofqual-delivery-report-2025/ofqual-delivery-report-2025?utm_source=openai))
For the fictional incident, imagine the awarding organisation instructs the centre to preserve submissions, pause further use of the PDF and provide its version and distribution records. It will review the evidence before deciding how affected work should be assessed. The centre logs those instructions and does not treat the pause as the final remedy.
Reusable incident log
Keep the log in an appropriate restricted location and link to evidence rather than copying learner work into it. Use a separate controlled list for learner identifiers where needed.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Incident and owner | Reference, discovery date and time, reporter, assessment lead and next review time. |
| Assessment and version | Qualification or course, task, sitting, issued version, format and secure location of the preserved original. |
| Issue and evidence | What is missing or incorrect, where it appears, how it was discovered and links to supporting records. Mark unconfirmed details clearly. |
| Potential scope | Centres, sittings, formats and learners potentially affected; who has started or submitted; what remains unknown. |
| Immediate actions | Who was notified, when, any authorised pause and the status of marking and result release. |
| Escalation | Awarding organisation contact, case reference, information supplied, requested guidance and next follow-up. |
| Decision | Authorised decision-maker, date, evidence considered, rationale, instructions, affected groups and who will implement them. |
| Closure and prevention | Completion checks, learner communications, outstanding actions, owner and review date for preventing recurrence. |
4. Implement, communicate and check
Once a decision is authorised, give markers and quality reviewers the same instructions. Record which submissions or results require action, who completed each check and whether anything remains unresolved before release. Tell learners what is known, what happens next and when they can expect an update, using wording agreed with the awarding organisation where applicable.
Afterwards, review how the table was lost: for example, whether the final PDF was checked against the source and whether modified formats were checked too. Assign an owner and a date to test the revised process. If results have already been issued when an error is discovered, escalate immediately rather than silently changing them; the awarding organisation’s correction and communication process may be needed.
Connect the checks without replacing the decision
EduMark Assessment Journeys connects assessment checks, staff, routing and result release. A team can use a journey to route work for review and release approved feedback once its checks are complete; the people with the appropriate authority still decide how an incident is handled. ([edumark.ai](https://www.edumark.ai/journeys))
Check the route for work already in progress: ordinary journey edits apply to future submissions, while applying changes to existing work is a separate, explicit operation. Do not assume a newly edited journey has placed every affected submission on hold. ([edumark.ai](https://www.edumark.ai/journeys))
Sources & further reading
See how EduMark connects learning, assessment and your team.
Explore EduMark →
