The question styles to have ready — each linked to its evidence and to a question in the practice paper.
Built by a six-model AI panel and backtested against the hidden 2025 papers — how we did it.
Built from a six-model AI analysis of every HSC English Advanced paper, marking guideline and marking-centre feedback report since 2019 — and, because Paper 1 is shared between the courses, the Paper 1 predictions pool the English Standard panel's six runs as well (twelve model-runs of evidence). 2026 is the final year of this syllabus and its prescriptions: a new English syllabus is examined from 2027, and final-year papers historically close the gaps in their own rubric rather than invent new formats. These are styles to prepare for, not guarantees — our backtests show examiners keep the skill and twist the format, so practise the skill chain, not a memorised question.
After 2025 locked the composition to imaginative-from-an-image, every run has discursive writing back on the paper — offered alone or beside imaginative — and the stimulus reverting to...
Module A reverts to a single rubric-anchored question addressed to all seven pairings (2019, 2020, 2023, 2024 mode) after 2025's per-pairing concept nouns — evaluate-verb, on how the...
After 2025's per-text closing-passage extracts, Module B swings back to one common conceptual question with no extract booklet — fusing rubric terms not yet centrally examined...
Paper 1 (unseen texts + the common-module essay) is one common paper for Advanced and Standard, so these calls draw on both cohorts' panels.
the single common 20-mark essay built on the rubric's 'anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies in human behaviour and motivations' — the only major Common Module strand never yet used for Section II, after storytelling (2020, 2025), challenges (2021), emotions and form (2022), collective ideas (2023) and qualities and motivations (2024). Expect it yoked to 'challenge assumptions / see the world differently', and framed for judgement: a quoted claim plus 'To what extent do you agree?'.
every one of the twelve model-runs — both panels, independently — ranked this strand first. Paradox has already been rehearsed twice in Section I (2022, 2023), which is how NESA historically promotes a concept to the essay.
restating the module description instead of naming a specific contradiction in your text; ignoring 'to what extent'; addressing only some terms of a multi-part stem.
whichever prescribed text you studied, write out its three sharpest contradictions — a character whose motives and actions collide, a form that undercuts its own telling — and build one thesis around each. Prepare the storytelling/particular-lives framing as your fallback essay (7 of 12 runs carry it at lower probability).
a photograph or illustration paired with a written extract in a 5–6 mark 'Compare how both texts represent…' question on perception, connection, belonging or place.
the even-year multimodal pattern (2020, 2022, 2024) broke in 2025's all-print paper; eleven of twelve runs predict its return.
two stapled mini-analyses instead of a comparison; no comparative connectives; the visual read only for content, not framing, salience and vector.
Section I's highest-mark item (5–6 marks, placed last) opens with 'Evaluate' or 'Assess' on a prose-fiction or literary- nonfiction extract — narrative voice (2021), family dynamics (2024), the human–landscape connection (2025).
five of the six Advanced runs call it; 2024 and 2025 feedback both flagged students who analysed when the verb demanded a judgement. (The Standard panel expects the top verb to stay at analyse/explain — since the paper is shared, prepare to deliver a judgement either way; it never costs marks to make one.)
an answer with no evaluative language and no stated judgement caps below the top band regardless of how good the analysis is.
A 3–5 mark Section I item that names a paradox or duality (boredom 2019, human behaviour 2022, consumerism 2023, discomfort/joy 2024) — nine of twelve runs predict its return after two years away. Define the paradox in your first sentence, then link technique to it; 2022–2023 feedback shows students who never define the concept score little.
The five-question, 20-mark section (3/4/4/4/5) opens with a 3–4 mark explain/analyse on an unseen poem — memory, place, ritual — and includes a 4–5 mark prose-fiction item on voice and characterisation (free indirect discourse, shifting focalisation) of someone navigating change or belonging. Recount instead of technique-to-effect has been flagged every year since 2019.
The panel's call (5 of 6 runs): reversion to one common question for all pairings after 2025's per-pairing concept nouns — evaluate-verb, on how the conversation reshapes meaning and values across contexts. The sharpest version uses the rubric's own untested signature phrase: 'resonances and dissonances' — never asked in seven years while 'collide' (2022) has been. Whichever pairing you studied, prepare to argue both halves: where the later text echoes the earlier, and where it pushes against it.
The perennial discriminator: integrated, balanced treatment. Two sequential single-text essays cap around 12/20 — markers have said so every year since 2019.
Also live: the reframing stem (how the later text changes what the earlier is 'really about'), possibly springboarded from a short extract of the later text; and the contrarian scenario (per-pairing nouns repeat with fresh single words — power, mortality, transformation). Centre any named concept in your thesis; 2025 markers punished bolting it onto prepared material.
The panel's call (5 of 6 runs): one common whole-text question with no extract, fusing rubric terms not yet centrally examined — 'distinctive qualities' with 'significance', or textual integrity with enduring value — framed as 'Evaluate…' or a short critical claim to test (e.g. that a text's significance lies in its construction, not its themes).
The traps: blurring paired terms markers want delineated ('personal and intellectual', 'artistry and integrity'); character study instead of form-specific metalanguage — treat a verse suite as a whole, name staging, name documentary construction; thin whole-text evidence.
The hedge (4 of 6 runs carry it): extracts return per text — but from an opening or pivotal mid-text passage rather than 2025's closing pages, asking how it establishes the text's concerns. Practise the move from passage to whole: one paragraph anchored in the extract, then the pivot outward. And keep an eye on the rubric's untested 'reception in other contexts' clause.
The panel's call (all 6 runs): discursive writing is back. After 2025 locked the task to imaginative-from-an-image, expect 'discursive or persuasive' (or 'imaginative or discursive') from a PRINT stimulus — a short reflective quotation on an everyday idea (attention, convenience, slowness, solitude, the unfinished), in the line of 2023's 'hope that comes with anticipation' and 2024's 'a life less convenient'.
The trap flagged in seven straight years of feedback: literal or token stimulus use. The stimulus must become the piece's conceptual core — a motif, a structural spine — and register and modality must match the form you choose. Narrative in discursive clothing is penalised.
The genuine coin flip — reflection: the panel splits 3–3 on whether an 8-mark part (b) (justify your choices, quoting your own writing) appears. Reflection has run odd years only (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025); 2026 is even. Prepare the form anyway — it costs one practice session, and if it appears the discriminator is quoting your own part (a) and tying each choice to its intended effect.
No module can be skipped — all four sections carry 20 marks every year. But the panel's probability floor is a second consecutive imaginative-only Module C task (no run predicts it), and per-pairing/per-text question banks are rated the less likely format in both Modules A and B. Don't build your revision around format-specific rehearsal; build it around the skill chains above.
We backtested this method against the real 2025 papers in Chemistry and Maths Extension 1 before publishing. Every topic the panel rated 90%+ appeared — 37 of 37 across both subjects — and about half of the specific question predictions recognisably appeared. But the misses are instructive: examiners inverted formats, migrated questions into multiple choice, and broke two streaks that five of six models had called. Treat everything above the same way: the skill chains — judgement verbs, paired-term coverage, integrated comparison, conceptual stimulus use — survive every format twist. A memorised essay doesn't.
Module A reverts to a single rubric-anchored question addressed to all seven pairings (2019, 2020, 2023, 2024 mode) after 2025's per-pairing concept nouns — evaluate-verb, on how the conversation between texts reshapes meaning, values or appreciation across contexts, with 'detailed reference to both of your prescribed texts'. Balanced, integrated treatment of the pair is the perennial discriminator; two sequential single-text essays cap around 12/20. Opus is the panel's contrarian, backing a per-pairing repeat on the two-year alternation (see watch list).
Marker-feedback lineage: Every year 2019–2025: unbalanced treatment and texts discussed in isolation
In the practice paper: Q1
The question is built on the module's own defining dyad — 'resonances and dissonances' between and within the texts — never used in seven years of questions while 'collide' (2022) and 'conversation' have been; a final-syllabus-year committee closing rubric gaps reaches for it. Requires treating BOTH halves: where the later text echoes the earlier, and where it pushes against it.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2023–2025 feedback: evaluate resonances and dissonances, not just compare themes
In the practice paper: Q1
The direction-of-influence variant continuing 2023–2024's logic: how engagement with the later text changes what the earlier text is 'really about' — reframing, interrogating or resisting its values for a new context, possibly springboarded from a short extract of the LATER text (2022 'collide' design refreshed). Demands purpose, form and context for both composers.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2023–2024 feedback: statement topped-and-tailed then a memorised thematic essay
After 2025's per-text closing-passage extracts, Module B swings back to one common conceptual question with no extract booklet — fusing rubric terms not yet centrally examined ('distinctive qualities' with 'significance', or textual integrity with enduring value), framed 'Evaluate…' or as a short critical claim to test. Rewards a delineated personal and intellectual voice plus form-specific analysis (verse suite as a whole, dramatic staging, documentary construction) over plot recount. Deepseek is the contrarian, backing another extract year.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2023 ('personal and intellectual' not delineated); 2021–2025 recount over form-specific evaluation
In the practice paper: Q2
The counter-scenario: 2025's closing-passage format continues but inverted — an opening or pivotal (mid-text) passage per prescribed text, asking how the extract establishes or reflects the text's concerns and distinctive qualities, demanding movement from extract to whole text. Deepseek rates this highest of the panel and adds a bold call that the extract comes from the MIDDLE of the text.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2020 and 2025 feedback: weaker responses paraphrased the extract
After 2025 locked the composition to imaginative-from-an-image, every run has discursive writing back on the paper — offered alone or beside imaginative — and the stimulus reverting to print: a short reflective quotation or prose extract on an everyday idea (attention, convenience, slowness, solitude, the unfinished), following 2023's 'hope that comes with anticipation' and 2024's 'a life less convenient'. The stimulus must function as the piece's conceptual core, not a token quotation; register and modality must fit the chosen form.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2019–2025 feedback: perfunctory/literal stimulus use is the chief weakness; 2024: adhere to the specified form, draw on more than one idea in the stimulus
In the practice paper: Q3
Reflection on the student's own writing has run a strict odd-year pattern (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) with single-task even years (2020, 2024) — three runs therefore rest it for 2026 (grok bold: 'no Module C reflection part', 0.66). Three runs keep it (deepseek P_exam 0.90, gemini 0.85, fable 0.60), producing a panel P(examined) of 0.58 — effectively a coin flip. consensus_probability here is P(rested) from the resting runs. Preparation should cover the 8-mark justify-your- choices form either way; if it appears, quoting one's own part (a) and linking choice to intended effect is the discriminator.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2023 and 2025 feedback: quotes from part (a) must be tied to purpose and effect, not listed
In the practice paper: Q3
No run predicts a second consecutive imaginative-only task. Where imaginative appears it is one of two offered forms ('imaginative or discursive'), from a print stimulus treated metaphorically — a motif, opening or central idea — with structural crafting (a fragment, a sustained motif, a specified opening) valued over a complete linear narrative. Students drilled on 2025's image-continuation format risk misreading the demand.
Marker-feedback lineage: 2020–2022 feedback: experiment with structure, avoid linear clichéd narratives; images used only 2021 and 2025
In the practice paper: Q3
Module A per-pairing concept nouns repeat 2025's architecture with fresh single words — power, mortality, authority, transformation (opus 0.40, fable 0.35, grok 0.28; the two-year-alternation reading)
Module B 'reception across contexts' rubric clause finally examined (opus 0.35, fable inside its 0.45 fusion call)
Module C two-part analysis-then-composition chain revives (2022 design): 5-mark craft analysis of the stimulus, then a 15-mark piece (gpt-5.6-sol 0.35, grok 0.32)
Module C names an audience and purpose (a magazine readership, a public address), testing register over narrative (opus 0.40)
Reflection reinstates a prescribed-text link ('one or more Module C texts'), reversing 2023/2025 own-writing-only (fable 0.20, opus bold 0.25, gemini string)
How likely each topic is to appear this year.
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 100%
Question types predicted here short answer ×12 stimulus based ×3
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 100%
Question types predicted here essay ×13
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 100%
Question types predicted here essay ×11 stimulus based ×2
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 100%
Question types predicted here essay ×12 stimulus based ×1
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 78%
Question types predicted here extended response ×9 stimulus based ×2
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 72%
Question types predicted here extended response ×7 stimulus based ×1
What each model expects
Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 68%
Question types predicted here short answer ×2 extended response ×2
What each model expects
How likely each topic is to appear. Open a topic for the question types to practise there.
60 marks · 3 questions
Every question is traceable to the consensus prediction behind it — open the web version and each question carries a “why this question” link into the evidence. All questions are original Intuition compositions in NESA style.
40 marks · 6 questions · One shared paper for Advanced and Standard.
Every question is traceable to the consensus prediction behind it — open the web version and each question carries a “why this question” link into the evidence. All questions are original Intuition compositions in NESA style.
Intu AI
Intu AI builds unlimited practice questions for English Advanced in these styles, marks your working, and explains what you missed — aligned to your syllabus.
Published Aug 2026, before the exams. In November 2026 we score these predictions publicly against the real paper — per-model calibration and question-level hit rates, the same harness as the 2025 backtest. How we did it.