How our predictions
held up in the real HSC.

Six of our twelve Maths Extension 1 forecasts received full matches. Several had clear counterparts in our practice paper.

The reverse normal question is a useful example. The exam supplied a probability and required students to find a minimum sample size. Our practice asked students to work backwards from a probability to a threshold. Both demanded the reverse use of a normal table. Rational inequalities and inverse derivatives also matched. The projectile forecast received partial credit because the real question used an inclined plane. Official Maths Extension 1 paper.

Economics also had six full matches. These included the multiplier calculation in Q16, the balance-of-payments calculation in Q12, unemployment in Q10, the overseas-economy case study in Q22(b), microeconomic policy in Q26 and external stability in Q27.

Some successful forecasts still differed from our practice paper. The overseas-economy case study appeared as a three-mark part, while our sample gave it a full essay. Fiscal policy appeared as a stimulus essay with different objectives from those we foregrounded.

The more consequential error was our advice about where to spend less revision time. The paper gave protection a ten-mark block in Q21, monetary policy and unemployment a ten-mark block in Q23, and distribution a role in the fiscal essay Q25. Our guide had suggested reducing emphasis on those areas. That advice deserved more caution. Official Economics paper.

English Advanced Paper 2 returned to common questions across the prescribed texts in Modules A and B. Module B had no extract, and Module C offered imaginative, discursive or persuasive writing in a single twenty-mark task. Several of our structural forecasts matched, although the conceptual wording we anticipated for Modules A and B missed. Official English Advanced Paper 2.

Paper 1 exposed a problem in our shared practice design. Advanced and Standard had different short-answer papers. Advanced ended Section I with an evaluation, and Standard ended with a comparison. Our shared mock combined those demands. Both real essays foregrounded assumptions about human strength and vulnerability, matching an alternative forecast. Our sample essay foregrounded paradoxes. The predicted visual comparison missed in both courses. Advanced Paper 1, Standard Paper 1.

Chemistry Q26 closely matched our prediction about secondary and tertiary alcohol pathways, and Q35 required unknown-ion identification and further testing. The spectroscopy forecast received partial credit. The actual Q36 was a five-mark halide identification using mass and proton NMR spectra. We had forecast a larger oxygenate problem using additional spectra. That changed the evidence students needed to interpret. Official Chemistry paper.

Biology had clear matches in the multiple-allele cross in Q32, reproductive technologies and genetic diversity in Q33, and dialysis evaluation in Q30. Investigating Science matched graph construction and method design. Biology paper, Investigating Science paper.

Physics received eleven partial matches and three misses, with zero full matches under our rubric. Several anticipated calculations became qualitative or experimental tasks. The HR-diagram, photoelectric and crossed-field forecasts missed. Recognising familiar content would still have left students needing to adapt their approach to the actual questions. Official Physics paper.

Legal Studies' compulsory crime essay focused on young offenders. We had included that possibility at a probability of 0.27, so a lower probability alternative turned out to matter. Our sample's compulsory essay followed the investigation-process forecast. The young-offender match belongs to the wider forecast set. The law-reform option and seven-mark contemporary human-rights task also matched. Official Legal Studies paper.

Business Studies' critical-path delay matched, but the finance-report forecast missed. Modern History's Stalinist social and cultural control forecast matched, while several named rotation forecasts missed. English Extension 1 restored creative composition, but its common elective question differed from the specific elective focuses we anticipated. Business Studies paper, Modern History paper, English Extension 1 paper.

The successful predictions identified recurring skills worth practising. The partial matches show how much flexibility an exam can demand within a familiar topic. Practice needs to include changes of context, unfamiliar data and different instructions, including explaining, calculating and evaluating.

The Economics result also makes us reconsider how strongly a forecast should influence revision priorities. An area that has received substantial attention in a recent paper can still return with significant marks. Coverage across the syllabus needs to remain part of preparation, and English practice needs to reflect the demands of each course.

Students and families can compare these examples with the original forecasts and practice papers. Explore our 2026 HSC predictions.