RFP Module 6 common mistakes
RFP Module 6 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the capstone as a knowledge recall test and answering from memory of definitions instead of building an integrated case narrative that connects regulation, advice process, and client outcome.
Earlier modules reward definitional recall, so candidates carry that habit into the capstone, where marks depend on synthesis across domains rather than isolated facts.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-page map linking each capstone task to the underlying domain concepts, then answer each task by explicitly tracing the chain from fact pattern to principle to recommendation.
Ignoring the word count or structure guidance and writing either a bare bullet list or an unstructured essay that never addresses the assessed criteria.
Candidates focus on content volume and skip re-reading the task instructions, so their answer covers topics but not the required structure or weighting.
What to do instead
Annotate the task brief, extract each assessed requirement into a checklist, allocate words proportionally to marks, and verify the checklist against the draft before submission.
Applying rules mechanically without stating the assumptions behind them, so the recommendation collapses when the examiner changes a fact such as time horizon or risk tolerance.
Candidates memorise thresholds and formulas but do not practise articulating the conditions under which those rules hold.
What to do instead
For every calculation or rule application, write the assumption set explicitly and add a short sensitivity note describing how the conclusion changes if a key assumption fails.
Producing calculations that are internally consistent but unsupported, with no workings, no units, and no reconciliation to the client's stated figures.
Candidates rush the numerate parts and assume the marker will infer the method from the final number.
What to do instead
Show each step, label inputs and units, and add a reconciliation line tying the result back to the client data given in the scenario.
Misreading the client scenario by importing facts from a familiar template case rather than using only the details supplied.
Pattern matching to past practice questions feels efficient, and candidates under time pressure fill gaps with assumed facts.
What to do instead
Highlight every fact in the scenario, list what is unknown, and state explicitly in the answer which facts were relied on and which were treated as unknown.
Confusing the roles of the adviser, the firm, and the client, attributing obligations to the wrong party in the advice process.
Role boundaries are taught separately across modules, and the capstone requires them to be applied simultaneously.
What to do instead
Build a three-column table of adviser, firm, and client responsibilities for each scenario and check every obligation statement against it before finalising.
Presenting a single recommendation with no alternatives, trade-offs, or justification, so the answer reads as assertion rather than advice.
Candidates equate decisiveness with quality and worry that alternatives look indecisive.
What to do instead
Use a structured format: options considered, criteria applied, trade-offs, chosen option, and justification, keeping the final recommendation unambiguous.
Neglecting the suitability and disclosure dimensions of the case, focusing only on the technical or numerical solution.
Technical content is more concrete and easier to revise, so softer process requirements get less practice time.
What to do instead
Add a standing checklist item for suitability, disclosure, and client understanding to every practice answer, and mark it as a required section in the plan.
Running out of time because the candidate drafts in full prose and never practises under exam conditions.
Untimed practice creates unrealistic expectations of how long synthesis and checking actually take.
What to do instead
Do at least two full timed rehearsals with the same planning, writing, and review phases, then set internal time checkpoints for each section.
Skipping the final review against the marking criteria, submitting answers with unresolved cross-references, inconsistent figures, or unmet requirements.
Candidates finish writing at the deadline and treat review as optional rather than as an assessed step.
What to do instead
Reserve a fixed block at the end for a criteria-by-criteria audit, checking figure consistency, terminology, and that every required element is present and clearly labelled.