PURE-MATHEMATICS-XPM01 · Pearson Edexcel International AS Level
PURE-MATHEMATICS-XPM01/12
Paper 1
Pure Mathematics XPM01 · November 2025 · Variant 2
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Pearson Edexcel
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.2 / 5
150
180 min
Algebra and functions
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
150
Duration
180 min
Session difficulty
3.2 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
A significant portion of the marks lay in Algebra and Functions across both papers, totaling over a quarter of the total available marks.
In P1, high-scoring students excelled on the structured curve sketching and intersection problems (Question 10), while weaker candidates struggled with the non-calculator constraints, frequently losing accuracy marks when manipulating surds.
In P2, the optimization stage design question (Question 10) served as a strong differentiator; candidates who structured their perimeter and area derivations step-by-step secured maximum marks, whereas others faltered during the substitution of the angle θ \theta θ into the perimeter formula.
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 Manipulation
Weight: 9100%Calculus
Weight: 778%Execution
Weight: 667%Trigonometric
Weight: 556%Graphical & Practical Skills
Weight: 444%Geometric Problem
Weight: 333%Solving &
Weight: 111%
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
Examiner report — national grade boundaries and question-level commentary
Level A
Approx. 80% of maximum mark
Level B
Approx. 70% of maximum mark
Level C
Approx. 60% of maximum mark
Level D
Approx. 50% of maximum mark
Level E
Approx. 40% 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 “Find” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Show” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Solve” questions.
Match the expected response style for “Sketch” questions.
Support your choice with specific evidence from data or the scenario given.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Algebra and functions (Unit P1)
39 marks this session
Integration (Unit P1)
14 marks this session
Sequences and series (Unit P2)
14 marks this session
Differentiation (Unit P2)
10 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
Algebra and functions (Unit P1)
Algebra and functions (Unit P1: Pure Mathematics 1)
Sequences and series (Unit P2)
Trigonometry (Unit P1: Pure Mathematics 1)
Sequences and series (Unit P2: Pure Mathematics 2)
Trigonometry (Unit P1)
Integration (Unit P2: Pure Mathematics 2)
Integration (Unit P1)
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
WMA11/01A: Pure Mathematics P1: WMA12/01A: Pure Mathematics P2:
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
Algebra and functions (Unit P1)
39 marks this session
Practise in RevuiIntegration (Unit P1)
14 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSequences and series (Unit P2)
14 marks this session
Practise in RevuiDifferentiation (Unit P2)
10 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
A significant portion of the marks lay in Algebra and Functions across both papers, totaling over a quarter of the total available marks.
- 2Message
In P1, high-scoring students excelled on the structured curve sketching and intersection problems (Question 10), while weaker candidates struggled with the non-calculator constraints, frequently losing accuracy marks when manipulating surds.
- 3Message
In P2, the optimization stage design question (Question 10) served as a strong differentiator; candidates who structured their perimeter and area derivations step-by-step secured maximum marks, whereas others faltered during the substitution of the angle θ \theta θ into the perimeter formula.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
November 2025 2025
Pure Mathematics XPM01
A significant portion of the marks lay in Algebra and Functions across both papers, totaling over a quarter of the total available marks. In P1, high-scoring students excelled on the structured curve sketching and intersection problems (Question 10), while weaker candidates strug
A significant portion of the marks lay in Algebra and Functions across both papers, totaling over a quarter of the total available marks.
In P1, high-scoring students excelled on the structured curve sketching and intersection problems (Question 10), while weaker candidates struggled with the non-calculator constraints, frequently losing accuracy marks when manipulating surds.
In P2, the optimization stage design question (Question 10) served as a strong differentiator; candidates who structured their perimeter and area derivations step-by-step secured maximum marks, whereas others faltered during the substitution of the angle θ \theta θ into the perimeter formula.
- Total marks
- 150
- Duration
- 180 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.2 / 5
Session analysis
A significant portion of the marks lay in Algebra and Functions across both papers, totaling over a quarter of the total available marks. In P1, high-scoring students excelled on the structured curve sketching and intersection problems (Question 10), while weaker candidates struggled with the non-calculator constraints, frequently losing accuracy marks when manipulating surds. In P2, the optimization stage design question (Question 10) served as a strong differentiator; candidates who structured their perimeter and area derivations step-by-step secured maximum marks, whereas others faltered during the substitution of the angle θ \theta θ into the perimeter formula.
Updated Jun 12, 2026
Paper breakdown
WMA11/01A: Pure Mathematics P1: WMA12/01A: Pure Mathematics P2:
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.
80% 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.
Medium Structured
(5-7 marks)
58·10·39%
Long Structured
(8-12 marks)
50·5·33%
Short Answer
(2-4 marks)
42·14·28%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Difficulty trend
Compare difficulty across recent years.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Proof by exhaustion or counter-example
85%85%
Exponential Modeling
75%75%
Examiner notes & key calculations
- The 'No Calculator' Constraint: Many candidates failed to show intermediate working for quadratic equations, surd rationalisation, and trigonometric values, resulting in a zero-score for accuracy marks.
- Bracket Errors during Squaring: A recurrent error in P1 Question 1 was writing 2x2 2x^2 2x2 instead of (2x)2 (2x)^2 (2x)2 during Pythagoras' Theorem calculations.
- Inequality Notation: In P1 Question 6, when describing the region of no real roots, candidates frequently merged two distinct regions into invalid compound inequalities like 3<k<−3/11 3 < k < -3/11 3<k<−3/11.
- Boundary Conditions: In P2 Question 6, several candidates failed to recognise that for a circle to lie completely in the first quadrant, its radius must be strictly less than the smallest coordinate of its centre.
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.