That would be the c&g which I think stands in better regard generally, but both are acceptable.Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. Is that for the city and guilds exam as some places seem to do the EAL one which doesnt cover the same sections as far as I can see. The codebreakers is really useful as you mentioned though appears to take a slightly harder line than other examples in GN3 and the other guide I have but I dont think you have to be 100% in line with them as long as your judgement is on the safe side if I'm right.
There are some which must be right, and are clear, (exposed conductors - if you don't give this C1, it isn't acceptable for example), but yes there is a whole range of possibilities in between the obvious extremes. As long as you justify it well it will be ok, provided its reasonable, I know a few occasions where the assessor thought C2, the candidate C3, and visa versa, in all cases the candidate passed that section (there are others where a clearly incorrect code was given, they didn't pass).
Obviously it appears best to err on the safe side, but this isn't necessarily true, they try to avoid the concept of going in somewhere and over coding, as it looks like a rip off style thing (eg good practice is this ___, therefore although nothing is technically wrong, you need to replace --- etc) they are after a balanced view, so too critical/over safe is not a good thing.
Last edited: