Extended Time Attached to the Wrong Seat
A 30-seat room runs two sessions back-to-back. The roster flags candidate A.O. for a 50% extended-time accommodation; B.S., seated at the next workstation, has none. At check-in the proctor seats A.O. at seat 12 and B.S. at seat 21, then launches both exams from a seat-based console. The delivery platform attaches accommodation profiles to seat numbers, and an extended-time profile had been left on seat 21 from an earlier administration. At 2 hours 40 minutes of a 4-hour appointment, A.O.'s exam auto-submits; B.S. keeps working. At 2:52, B.S. asks whether she can take a break, saying "the clock still says 1:58." A.O. has already left the testing room and is waiting for a printed confirmation. Both candidates are still on site. No incident has been logged. The proctor asks whether to let B.S. finish, since "she never asked for the extra time," and wants to note the accommodation error in the shift log instead of filing an irregularity report.
1. State your immediate actions in the next ten minutes, in order.
Read the worked answer
Act on the session first, argue about paperwork later.
- Take control of B.S.'s workstation now. She has roughly two hours of time she is not entitled to and a live exam still running. Tell her the session is paused pending a technical check, stop the workstation, and end her attempt through the irregularity procedure rather than letting her keep submitting answers. Every minute she continues deepens the advantage and widens the scope of the review.
- Do not let her leave with unanswered questions - but give her no outcome. Standard line: the session had a technical problem, her attempt is being referred, and she will be contacted. Do not say "you got extra time," do not apologise, and do not discuss A.O.
- Separate the candidates. A.O. must not be told that B.S. is being stopped, and neither should be left where they can compare notes.
- Preserve evidence: console launch log, seat assignment screen, the accommodation profile record showing seat 21, the appointment IDs, and CCTV covering the room during both attempts. Export and note the export time.
- Call the supervisor on duty and confirm the session is halted before anything else is resumed.
- File the irregularity report covering both candidates before the end of shift - not a shift-log note. A shift log is for operational detail; this is a scored-session event with two affected results, and it must reach PSI on the standard timeline.
The proctor's plan to write it in the shift log is the single most damaging choice available here, because it makes the later review look like concealment rather than a technical fault.
2. What is the disposition for A.O. and for B.S., and what may you tell each of them?
Read the worked answer
A.O. is the injured party. She received 2 hours 40 minutes against an entitlement of 6 hours - she lost roughly 3 hours 20 minutes, and her exam was submitted while she still had work to do. The center cannot restore that. Her attempt should be referred with a recommendation for a retest at no cost, because the administration she received did not match her approved accommodation. Whether the submitted responses can be recovered and scored is a platform question for PSI; do not tell her the exam is void, and do not tell her it stands.
B.S. is not at fault but received an unearned advantage. She worked roughly 2 hours 40 minutes with a clock showing time she was not entitled to, and may have paced herself differently as a result. Letting her finish produces a result that cannot be defended: the administration record will show extended time attached to her seat, and a later audit will surface it regardless. Her attempt should be terminated and referred with a recommendation that the result not be scored and that she be offered a re-administration without charge, since the defect was the center's. She should not be penalised for a centre error, and she should not keep the benefit either.
What you may say: the same neutral script to both - there was a technical problem with the session, the attempt is under review, PSI will contact you, here is what happens next. Give each a written note with a reference number.
What you may not say: that one candidate got the other's time; that a retest is approved; that scores are void; or any comment suggesting fault by a candidate. The proctor's argument - "she never asked for the extra time" - misunderstands the control: the integrity of the result depends on the time actually allowed, not on whether the candidate requested it. A fairness problem does not disappear because nobody complained.
3. Give the root cause and a corrective action plan, including what you would check about past sessions.
Read the worked answer
Root cause chain. The platform attaches accommodation profiles to seat identifiers, seat assignment was done manually without reference to the accommodation flag on the roster, the launch step had no verification that the profile matched the candidate sitting there, and stale profiles were not cleared at session close. Any one of those being controlled would have prevented the event; all four being absent made it likely.
Immediate corrective:
- Purge and verify the purge of all accommodation profiles on every workstation at session close, with a signed check.
- Reassign A.O. and B.S. to fresh appointments under new appointment IDs so no trace of the faulty sessions carries into the next attempt.
Preventive:
- Assign stations from the roster so accommodation flags travel with the candidate record, not with a seat.
- Two-person read-back at launch: candidate name, appointment ID, station number, and accommodation status, initialled on a launch sheet.
- A pre-session list of accommodated candidates posted at the proctor station, checked off at launch.
- Adjust the platform configuration so a stale profile cannot attach silently, and log any override.
Look backwards. Query every session on seat 21 and on any seat that has carried a stored accommodation profile, for the retention period. Check for candidates who finished unusually early, who submitted well before the expected duration, or who had no accommodation flag and an extended clock. Two or three past instances turn this from a one-off into a systemic finding that must be reported as such.
Effectiveness check: 20 consecutive accommodated administrations reviewed at 90 days with zero seat-profile mismatches.