When assessment evidence is missing: distinguish a gap from a weak answer

When a submission does not provide enough evidence for a criterion, record what you reviewed, where any relevant evidence appears and why it does or does not meet the requirement. If you cannot find relevant evidence, say so; if the learner attempted the criterion but fell short, explain the difference. Then check the applicable assessment rules before requesting further work or deciding on reassessment.

By the EduMark team

Start with the evidence you are allowed to assess

Check the correct submission, version and assessment brief. If the rules permit evidence from more than one source, review the eligible material before recording a criterion as unsupported. Relevant evidence might appear in a different section from the one you expected.

If a file is inaccessible or appears incomplete, distinguish that administrative problem from a judgement about its contents. Follow your centre’s process to establish what was received and whether the issue can be resolved. Do not assume the learner has submitted nothing, or accept a replacement without checking the rules.

Ofqual’s research describes an evidence-tracking approach that records both the type of evidence and its location, helping assessors and quality assurers revisit decisions. Your own record should use the format required by your organisation and awarding body. Read Ofqual’s research on how CASLO qualifications work. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-caslo-qualifications-work/how-caslo-qualifications-work))

Example: a fictional learner report

Imagine an internally assessed training task asking a learner to review late deliveries. For this example only, the assessor must judge each of the three criteria below separately. The permitted evidence is the learner’s two-page report, and the assessor has checked the whole report.

The second and third rows are different. The learner has attempted to address an effect in criterion 2, but the explanation is insufficient. For criterion 3, the assessor has found no relevant evidence in the permitted report. Neither observation proves what the learner knows outside this submission.

Use your scheme’s actual terminology for the formal outcome. “Falls short” and “no relevant evidence found” are useful working descriptions; they do not replace prescribed marks, grade descriptors or result codes.

Record a judgement another person can follow

For each criterion or marking requirement, record:

• The assessment reference: brief, criterion or mark-scheme version, and the submission or attempt reviewed.
• The evidence location: page, section or other permitted evidence reference. If none is found, note what material was checked.
• The decision and reason: identify what the evidence demonstrates and, where applicable, what is insufficient against the requirement.
• The assessor and date: include any required quality-assurance or second-review information.
• The next action: record who will check the rules, what decision is pending and when the learner will be updated.

Keep the original judgement and any later evidence or reassessment decision distinguishable, using your organisation’s approved record. That makes it possible to see what changed without rewriting the history of the first attempt.

Check the rules before asking for more

Do not assume that a missing criterion means the learner can simply add a paragraph. Assessment designs differ. In Ofqual’s research on a selection of qualifications, some required all relevant criteria to be met, while others allowed compensation between aspects of performance. The report describes the qualifications studied; it is not a substitute for the rules governing your assessment. Read Ofqual’s report on assessment approaches. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responding-to-criticisms-of-the-caslo-approach-report-d/responding-to-criticisms-of-the-caslo-approach-report-d))

Before communicating an opportunity to the learner, check:

1. The assessment model: must each criterion be met, or does a mark scheme or best-fit judgement determine the outcome?
2. Permitted evidence: can the assessor consider other work already submitted, ask for clarification, or use another evidence type?
3. Further attempts: is a revised submission, new task or reassessment allowed? Check deadlines, attempt limits, any grade caps and who authorises the decision.
4. Feedback and support: what may the assessor tell the learner without providing an answer or exceeding permitted support? Check any applicable adjustments and centre procedures.

If the rules are unclear, refer the case to the assessment lead, quality team or awarding body rather than promising another attempt. In a fixed examination or other closed assessment, the correct next step may be to apply the published mark scheme and normal results process, not request additional evidence.

Communicate the outcome without filling the gap

Where the rules allow criterion-level feedback, the assessor in the fictional example might write:

“Your report identifies the number of late deliveries. It mentions an effect on customers, but does not explain what happens to the service. I could not find a comparison of two improvements in the report. We are checking the assessment rules before confirming whether any further evidence can be submitted.”

This identifies the issue without supplying the missing explanation or promising a resubmission. Give the learner the confirmed next step and relevant review or appeal information through the usual process.

Connect the hand-offs

EduMark Assessment Journeys connects assessment checks, staff, routing and result release. A team could use a journey to route work for review and, where the rules permit, open another attempt. The assessor and authorised staff remain responsible for interpreting the evidence, applying the rules and approving the outcome. ([edumark.ai](https://www.edumark.ai/journeys))