Overall Examination Verdict
The May/June 2026 examination series for Physics 9702 offered a comprehensive test of syllabus learning outcomes, balancing analytical derivations, empirical graph skills, and direct problem solving. Candidates were rewarded for rigorous unit tracking, strict adherence to significant figures, and precise articulation of physical laws.
Where the Marks Were Won and Lost
High-scoring candidates demonstrated exceptional command of core derivations, such as deriving the orbital mass relation \( M = \frac{4\pi^2 R^3}{G T^2} \) in Paper 44 Question 2 and setting up linearised equations \( \frac{v^2}{c^2} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi \rho r^3} + Z \) in Paper 54. Conversely, marks were frequently lost on subtle definitions (e.g. failing to state that Coulomb’s law applies strictly to point charges, or omitting 'no net transfer of thermal energy' in thermal equilibrium definitions). In Paper 24, graphical tasks requiring exact intercept coordinates and diode non-linear circuit calculations proved discriminating.
Examiner Pitfalls and Recurring Errors
- Uncertainty Arithmetic: In Paper 24 Q2 and Paper 54 Q2, students often forgot to multiply fractional uncertainties by exponents (e.g. \( 3 \times \frac{\Delta d}{d} \) for \( d^3 \)).
- Definition Incompleteness: Incomplete statements of Hooke's law (omitting 'applied force') or resonance (missing 'driving frequency equals natural frequency').
- Phase & Direction in Waves/Fields: In Paper 44 Q7, drawing continuous flux lines with correct polarities required strict geometric accuracy.
Preparation Strategy and Upcoming Predictions
Candidates preparing for upcoming sessions should prioritize structured experimental data analysis (worst-acceptable line constructions and fractional uncertainty propagation) and focus revision on under-represented areas such as Nuclear Binding Energy, Hall Effect derivations, and PET scanning physics.