A review process, not an official result

How a marking job is processed

• The user selects a specific paper before uploading work.
• Pages are prepared at bounded dimensions and checked against upload limits.
• The service compares visible working with the marking material associated with the selected paper.
• Returned question numbers and mark totals are reconciled with expected paper structure.
• The saved result presents awarded marks, recognised working, explanations and warnings for review.

Checks built into the workflow

• Paper, tier, session and regional-variant mismatch detection
• Blank-response handling
• Expected question coverage and official total reconciliation
• Contradictory full-mark explanation checks
• Failure states when source material or model output is incomplete

Known limitations

• Handwriting, faint scans, diagrams and ambiguous page order may be read incorrectly.
• Equivalent mathematical methods can be missed or interpreted differently.
• A plausible explanation can still contain an error.
• The service does not replace awarding-organisation standardisation or professional judgement.

Evidence status

Maiths has not yet published a statistically valid benchmark against a named panel of qualified examiners. Until a versioned test set, sampling method, agreement metric, error analysis and independent reviewer are published, no percentage-accuracy or examiner-equivalence claim should be inferred.

A future benchmark should report exact-match and tolerance-based agreement by question type, confidence intervals, disagreement examples, model and prompt versions, exclusions and the date of evaluation.

How to review a result

Check the uploaded page, the question-level explanation and the relevant official mark scheme together. Ask a qualified teacher to review any decision that affects teaching, predicted performance or another important next step.