9618 · Cambridge International AS Level
9618/21
Structured Questions
Computer Science · June 2025 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Cambridge Assessment International Education
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.4 / 5
150
210 min
Procedural and modular pseudocode development with array and file manipulation
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
150
Duration
210 min
Session difficulty
3.4 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment.
While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly.
The practical programming paper demanded rigorous logical precision, particularly in the 2D array bubble sort and sequential text file manipulation, making the overall series a solid 3.4 out of 5 in terms of difficulty.
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.
Logical
Weight: 7100%Reasoning
Weight: 686%Pseudocode Architecture
Weight: 571%Manipulation
Weight: 343%Technical
Weight: 229%Theory & Principles
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. 66% of maximum mark
Level B
Approx. 57% of maximum mark
Level C
Approx. 47% of maximum mark
Level D
Approx. 37% of maximum mark
Level E
Approx. 27% 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
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Match the expected response style for “Write” questions.
Name or point to the specific feature asked for — avoid extra explanation.
Match the expected response style for “Complete” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.2
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Programming
38 marks this session
Algorithm Design and Problem-solving
20 marks this session
Hardware
19 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
Programming
Algorithm Design and Problem-solving
Databases
Information representation
Hardware
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 11 (Theory Fundamentals):
Paper 21 (Problem-solving and Programming Skills):
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
Programming
38 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAlgorithm Design and Problem-solving
20 marks this session
Practise in RevuiHardware
19 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment.
- 2Message
While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly.
- 3Message
The practical programming paper demanded rigorous logical precision, particularly in the 2D array bubble sort and sequential text file manipulation, making the overall series a solid 3.4 out of 5 in terms of difficulty.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2025 2025
Computer Science
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment. While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly. The prac
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment.
While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly.
The practical programming paper demanded rigorous logical precision, particularly in the 2D array bubble sort and sequential text file manipulation, making the overall series a solid 3.4 out of 5 in terms of difficulty.
- Total marks
- 150
- Duration
- 210 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.4 / 5
Session analysis
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment. While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly. The practical programming paper demanded rigorous logical precision, particularly in the 2D array bubble sort and sequential text file manipulation, making the overall series a solid 3.4 out of 5 in terms of difficulty.
Updated Jun 12, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 11 (Theory Fundamentals):
Paper 21 (Problem-solving and Programming Skills):
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.
77% 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.
Theory & Explanations
53·12·35%
Short Questions / Diagrams
53·6·35%
Pseudocode Coding
30·4·20%
Trace Tables & Dry Runs
10·2·7%
SQL Scripting
4·1·3%
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 11 (Theory Fu
0.83 m/minTotal marks
75
Total time
90 min
Avg pace
0.83
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Data Structures (Binary Trees & Linked Lists)
85%85%
Assembly Language Bitwise Shifting
75%75%
Exam Difficulty Verdict
The May/June 2025 series of 9618 Computer Science presented a balanced but challenging assessment. While Paper 11 remained highly accessible with standard database normalization, security encryption, and basic assembly trace tables, Paper 21 raised the bar significantly. The practical programming paper demanded rigorous logical precision, particularly in the 2D array bubble sort and sequential text file manipulation, making the overall series a solid 3.4 out of 5 in terms of difficulty.
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.