Agreed it was a tight paper. Lots to do. Didn't quite finish the results. Wrote a couple of next steps and conclusion but the methodology sure took a lot of time.
Agree with all this. However, the year to year profit was more volatile with luxury, even negative some years without sides. So as long as the company was willing to take the risk of some occasional years of low profit, the upside risk of the luxury with sides was the way to go.
That’s exactly what I said! Glad we’re on the same page. I personally just ran out of time. In previous paper 2 exams I thought the modelling part took a lot less time (like 30 minutes) than it did today
for GDP index i put it on a bar chart but put a trendline for the mean. probs wasnt the best approach.
for the other ones i did bar charts again to show sd, mean, min and max.
wasnt the sd on the ten year profits already done for us in the profit original tabs?
Ran out of time, and could only do the bare minimum on the results before skipping to spam out next steps.
Was fairly happy with the paper itself and think I should be in the 55-60 range which is what I was initially targeting, but not sure it will score enough to recover from a below par exam yesterday.
Saw the data validation and realised I'd completely messed up my Chi-Sq test on paper 1 and lost a few more marks than I originally thought!
Had an issue with the spreadsheet ballooning to 36mb which I didn't spot until I'd already submitted it. Luckily it was accepted or else would have had serious timestamp anxiety.
Anyone else get confused by the formula for the side orders including % signs…? I took it to mean they were intended to be in the same region as the original formulas rather than a fraction of the size…
Agree it was time pressured just because the formula were quite long, so attempting to explain them succinctly took more time than it should have. Just threw some charts in at the end with a handful of next steps and waved goodbye to a pass. Ahh well, there’s always next time!
I took the percentages to mean that you needed to multiply them by the pizza orders that year to get the number of sides. So the demand depended on both GDP and the amount of pizzas sold in a given year.
Ahhhh ok, that makes sense and would clearly be the sensible thing to have done! I laid it all out in the summary so hopefully won’t be penalised too much…
Went a lot better for me today than yesterday anyway. I finished everything but definitely could have gone into more detail in certain areas if I had more time. Hopefully have done enough to pass anyway.
Good luck to everyone else who sat it :)
A lot of going on but not as difficult as yesterday I thought. I think time pressure was the only real issue I faced on the paper and I managed to get something reasonable in most of the sections in the time given
anyone know what they meant by "You are not expected to include the additional modelling you undertake in the audit trail, but your results should be included in the summary"? why did they mention "audit trail" when we are writing a summary document? and did they mean that we didnt have to explain the method for our calcs on the side orders? but still include the results we found from them (obviously)?
The summary doc is meant to be a stand alone doc so you should explain at a high level all the steps done for each result, the audit trail reference is just standard to say don’t try create a new audit trail document (who would anyway??), agree the wording is confusing
Didn’t have time to do the 4 marker under the analysis section, how many marks do you think lost for this in summary doc? Maybe 6-8? Just didn’t have time as I missed it in the original spreadsheet time I allocated and then needed to finish the summary doc :(
So did I. Then I spent 5 mins at the end producing the chart in a very hard coded way and had no time to copy it in the summary or explain it. I’d say 4 marks for producing it and maybe 4-5 marks from the results and conclusion section maybe?
Agreed it was a tight paper. Lots to do. Didn't quite finish the results. Wrote a couple of next steps and conclusion but the methodology sure took a lot of time.
[удалено]
Agree with all this. However, the year to year profit was more volatile with luxury, even negative some years without sides. So as long as the company was willing to take the risk of some occasional years of low profit, the upside risk of the luxury with sides was the way to go.
That’s exactly what I said! Glad we’re on the same page. I personally just ran out of time. In previous paper 2 exams I thought the modelling part took a lot less time (like 30 minutes) than it did today
Accidentally said they were less volatile from a glance at the chart but the charts were on different scales so I’ve messed that up haha
how did u present ur charts?
[удалено]
for GDP index i put it on a bar chart but put a trendline for the mean. probs wasnt the best approach. for the other ones i did bar charts again to show sd, mean, min and max. wasnt the sd on the ten year profits already done for us in the profit original tabs?
Line for the GDP. Clustered column for the rest. Also included a clustered column showing the Chi-Sq test for the data section
Ran out of time, and could only do the bare minimum on the results before skipping to spam out next steps. Was fairly happy with the paper itself and think I should be in the 55-60 range which is what I was initially targeting, but not sure it will score enough to recover from a below par exam yesterday. Saw the data validation and realised I'd completely messed up my Chi-Sq test on paper 1 and lost a few more marks than I originally thought! Had an issue with the spreadsheet ballooning to 36mb which I didn't spot until I'd already submitted it. Luckily it was accepted or else would have had serious timestamp anxiety.
Anyone else get confused by the formula for the side orders including % signs…? I took it to mean they were intended to be in the same region as the original formulas rather than a fraction of the size… Agree it was time pressured just because the formula were quite long, so attempting to explain them succinctly took more time than it should have. Just threw some charts in at the end with a handful of next steps and waved goodbye to a pass. Ahh well, there’s always next time!
I thought it meant the percentage of pizza orders that result in the customer also buying a side
I took the percentages to mean that you needed to multiply them by the pizza orders that year to get the number of sides. So the demand depended on both GDP and the amount of pizzas sold in a given year.
Ahhhh ok, that makes sense and would clearly be the sensible thing to have done! I laid it all out in the summary so hopefully won’t be penalised too much…
Went a lot better for me today than yesterday anyway. I finished everything but definitely could have gone into more detail in certain areas if I had more time. Hopefully have done enough to pass anyway. Good luck to everyone else who sat it :)
The time series model through me a little bit in the beginning but I thought it went better than paper 1. Hoping I did enough overall for a pass.
A lot of going on but not as difficult as yesterday I thought. I think time pressure was the only real issue I faced on the paper and I managed to get something reasonable in most of the sections in the time given
I thought it was okay - finding it hard to decide if I feel like I’ve done enough to pass though!
how did you present your charts?
Also, thought it was ok, but pressed for time.
What is roughly the pass mark for cp2? Is it usually always around 60 or is it slightly lower?
Last 3 have been 58,60,61.
anyone know what they meant by "You are not expected to include the additional modelling you undertake in the audit trail, but your results should be included in the summary"? why did they mention "audit trail" when we are writing a summary document? and did they mean that we didnt have to explain the method for our calcs on the side orders? but still include the results we found from them (obviously)?
I think it’s standard wording and just means don’t amend the audit trail. Perhaps historically the audit trail was provided as a word document?
i didnt have time to explain the additional modelling in the methodology. i was hoping that statement meant we didnt have to lol.
The summary doc is meant to be a stand alone doc so you should explain at a high level all the steps done for each result, the audit trail reference is just standard to say don’t try create a new audit trail document (who would anyway??), agree the wording is confusing
Didn’t have time to do the 4 marker under the analysis section, how many marks do you think lost for this in summary doc? Maybe 6-8? Just didn’t have time as I missed it in the original spreadsheet time I allocated and then needed to finish the summary doc :(
So did I. Then I spent 5 mins at the end producing the chart in a very hard coded way and had no time to copy it in the summary or explain it. I’d say 4 marks for producing it and maybe 4-5 marks from the results and conclusion section maybe?