0607 · Cambridge IGCSE
0607/23
(Extended, Non-calculator)
International Mathematics · June 2024 · Variant 3
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Cambridge Assessment International Education
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
4.2 / 5
220
280 min
Trigonometric and Algebraic Optimization Modelling
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
220
Duration
280 min
Session difficulty
4.2 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves through their performance on multi-step geometry and coordinate optimization questions.
In Paper 4, the challenging circle-in-triangle problem (Question 14) demanded a precise application of exact trigonometric values and trigonometric ratios (such as tan30∘=13\tan 30^{\circ} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}tan30∘=31), separating top-tier students from the rest.
In Paper 6 (Investigation & Modelling), translating physical conditions—such as fencing boundaries under specific financial constraints—into piecewise linear or quadratic formulas proved to be the absolute differentiator.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Algebraic Reasoning
Weight: 7100%Trigonometric/
Weight: 571%Analysis & I
Weight: 457%Calculator Utilisation
Weight: 343%Investigative & S
Weight: 114%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
Cambridge Principal Examiner Report — component performance and international standards
Level A*
Approx. 84% of maximum mark
Level A
Approx. 69% of maximum mark
Level B
Approx. 52% of maximum mark
Level C
Approx. 35% of maximum mark
Level D
Approx. 25% of maximum mark
Level E
Approx. 15% of maximum mark
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “Show” questions.
Match the expected response style for “out” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Find” questions.
Match the expected response style for “down” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Sketch” questions.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Match the expected response style for “Solve” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.7
Min per mark: 1.1
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Area and perimeter
32 marks this session
Non-right-angled triangles
28 marks this session
Graphs of functions
25 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Sequences
Algebraic manipulation
Functions
Similarity
Surface area and volume
Pythagoras’ theorem
Probability of combined events
Transformations
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 2 (Extended) 0607/23:
Paper 4 (Extended) 0607/43:
Paper 6 (Extended) 0607/63:
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Area and perimeter
32 marks this session
Practise in RevuiNon-right-angled triangles
28 marks this session
Practise in RevuiGraphs of functions
25 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves through their performance on multi-step geometry and coordinate optimization questions.
- 2Message
In Paper 4, the challenging circle-in-triangle problem (Question 14) demanded a precise application of exact trigonometric values and trigonometric ratios (such as tan30∘=13\tan 30^{\circ} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}tan30∘=31), separating top-tier students from the rest.
- 3Message
In Paper 6 (Investigation & Modelling), translating physical conditions—such as fencing boundaries under specific financial constraints—into piecewise linear or quadratic formulas proved to be the absolute differentiator.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2024 2024
International Mathematics
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves through their performance on multi-step geometry and coordinate optimization questions. In Paper 4, the challenging circle-in-triangle problem (Question 14) demanded a precise application of exact trigonometric values and trigonome
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves through their performance on multi-step geometry and coordinate optimization questions.
In Paper 4, the challenging circle-in-triangle problem (Question 14) demanded a precise application of exact trigonometric values and trigonometric ratios (such as tan30∘=13\tan 30^{\circ} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}tan30∘=31), separating top-tier students from the rest.
In Paper 6 (Investigation & Modelling), translating physical conditions—such as fencing boundaries under specific financial constraints—into piecewise linear or quadratic formulas proved to be the absolute differentiator.
- Total marks
- 220
- Duration
- 280 min
- Session difficulty
- 4.2 / 5
Session analysis
High-scoring candidates distinguished themselves through their performance on multi-step geometry and coordinate optimization questions. In Paper 4, the challenging circle-in-triangle problem (Question 14) demanded a precise application of exact trigonometric values and trigonometric ratios (such as tan30∘=13\tan 30^{\circ} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}tan30∘=31), separating top-tier students from the rest. In Paper 6 (Investigation & Modelling), translating physical conditions—such as fencing boundaries under specific financial constraints—into piecewise linear or quadratic formulas proved to be the absolute differentiator.
Updated Jun 13, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 2 (Extended) 0607/23:
Paper 4 (Extended) 0607/43:
Paper 6 (Extended) 0607/63:
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
73% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Multi-Step Proof & Derivation
60·12·27%
Mathematical Modelling & Investigations
60·10·27%
Short Answer & Numeric Fluency
58·22·26%
GDC Graphing & Analysis
42·8·19%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Difficulty trend
Compare difficulty across recent years.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 2 (Core/Ext N
0.89 m/minPaper 6 (Ext Invest
0.60 m/minTotal marks
100
Total time
145 min
Avg pace
0.69
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Vectors in two dimensions
90%90%
Circle theorems II
85%85%
Exponential growth and decay
80%80%
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Lack of Generalization: In the Investigation sections of Paper 6, candidates frequently lost marks by providing specific numerical examples instead of formulating general algebraic proofs using variables (e.g., xxx, yyy, and zzz).
- GDC Inefficiency: Many students failed to find the precise coordinates of local extrema and intersection points, often estimating values rather than using built-in GDC intersection solvers.
- Rounding Failures: A recurring examiner grievance was the disregard for the standard rubric requiring non-exact values to be written to 3 significant figures.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 1h 30min
- Total marks
- 75
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.