Four marks, three disputed scripts: applying the prose mark scheme

• Script A - 1/4. The theme is named, so the first mark is earned. The eight-line plot retelling earns nothing under criterion 2, because that criterion asks for incidents used as evidence for the theme; a narration with no connective ('यामुळे', 'यातूनच') is not evidence. Author background is absent. The trap here is rewarding length: examiners who see a long, factually correct answer are tempted to give 2.
• Script B - 3/4. Theme 1 + two linked incidents 2 = 3. The author mark is missing because no background is mentioned. The missing punctuation and the spelling errors belong to the language component of the paper and must not be charged here as well.
• Script C - 1/4. Biography earns the author mark only. The closing sentence is an assertion, not a theme, and no incident is cited. A biography dump cannot substitute for textual reading, however accurate the facts.
• Margin comments: A - 'कथानक सांगितले, पण विचाराशी जोडले नाही'; B - 'विचार व दोन प्रसंग पूर्ण; लेखकपरिचय राहिला'; C - 'लेखकपरिचय दिला, पाठाचा विचार दिला नाही.'
• Principle to state aloud to the team: mark the criterion, not the effort. Each of the four marks must be traceable to one sentence in the script.

Ruling (to be typed on the key and initialled by all four examiners):

1. Theme (1 mark): the key wording is indicative, not prescriptive. Award the mark to any one-sentence statement of the lesson's central idea that the text actually supports. Test it against the ending of the lesson: if the closing paragraphs bear out the student's formulation, it is correct even if it is not the key's sentence. Do not award it for a topic label ('शेतकरी आणि दुष्काळ') with no idea attached.
2. Incidents (2 marks): each incident must be (a) named specifically enough to be located in the lesson, and (b) tied to the theme by a connective or an explicit consequence. An incident that is merely narrated earns nothing under this criterion, because it is indistinguishable from the plot retelling in Script A. One linked incident = 1; two linked incidents = 2.
3. Author (1 mark): full mark only when the background given is used to explain the lesson's stand. A bare list of facts earns 0 here, not a consolation half, because the unit is 1 mark and the criterion is the link.
4. Language: no deduction inside this question. Errors are recorded in the language section.

Why this works: the four examiners diverge not on facts but on degree. Converting each criterion into a yes/no test removes the judgement space.

Reject the deduction; record the errors separately.

• The paper already carries dedicated marks for language. Deducting again inside a content question makes one error cost marks twice - double jeopardy - and, worse, makes the same script score differently depending on which examiner handles the language section.
• Three spelling errors do not obstruct communication here; the examiner can read the theme and both incidents without effort. Content marks exist to test whether the answer meets the criterion, and it does.
• The exception is narrow: if the board's own scheme for this paper states that a language sub-mark is embedded in the same question, deduct once, at that stated point, and say so on the key. Absent that instruction, the content question stays content.
• Practical rule for the team: keep a separate 'surface error' tally sheet attached to the bundle. It supports feedback and any later recheck without contaminating the 4-mark decision.
• Reliability argument to close the meeting: inter-rater agreement collapses when examiners apply unwritten penalties. A written key with a stated no-deduction rule can be reproduced by a substitute examiner on re-verification; a private half-mark cannot.