Elite Prep Pack · 24 questions · Rohan · Year 6
Rohan reasons brilliantly without the clock, but time pressure triggers a habit of reaching for familiar methods before reading the question fully.
In short
Core strength
Finds the key constraint and builds from it
Rohan spots the one number or rule that unlocks a problem and works outward from there. He did this cleanly on six of the twelve untimed questions, with no wrong turns.
Main thing to work on
Reads the question, then chooses a method
Under the clock, Rohan reached for a familiar method before finishing the question on 5 of 9 chances. That single habit cost him four answers in the timed sitting.
Under time pressure
Planning halved when the clock started
Untimed, Rohan spent a third of his time planning. Timed, that fell to 15%. Working time jumped from 51% to 67%. Less planning meant more wrong turns that cost more time to recover.
This week
"What is the question actually asking for?"
Before Rohan writes anything, ask him to say the question back in his own words. Use it on any maths problem this week, timed or not.
01 · How the time was spent
Every question, second by second
One row per question, on the same scale, so the two sittings can be compared directly. Reading, planning and working are shown in the order they happened.
Untimed · no time limit
planning 33%
With time to think, the dark band is wide on the questions that needed a plan. That is the shape you want.
Timed · 5 minutes a question
planning 15%
The dark band narrows almost everywhere, and question 1 ran the clock out. Less planning, then straight into working.
02 · How Rohan reasons
From reading the question to checking the answer
Reading the question all the way through
Rohan read carefully and accurately in the untimed sitting: he misread the wording on none of the five questions where this could have gone wrong. Under the clock, that changed. He misread the wording on 2 of 7 chances, and on a further question he missed a condition the question implied but never stated outright. None of those misreads were caught before he committed to an answer.
The pattern is consistent: the timed sitting is where reading breaks down. Rohan moves quickly from the first phrase that looks familiar to a method he already knows, without always finishing the question. The result is a fluent, confident solution to the wrong problem.
Try this
Before writing anything, ask Rohan to say in one sentence what the answer will actually be — not how to find it, but what kind of thing it is.
Choosing a method before the question is finished
This is the habit that shaped the timed sitting most. Rohan jumped to a familiar method on 5 of 9 opportunities where this could happen — and caught none of them himself. In the untimed sitting, the same habit appeared zero times across four chances. The clock is clearly the trigger.
When Rohan recognises the shape of a problem, he moves fast. That speed is an asset on questions that really do match what he expects. But on questions with a small twist — an extra condition, a different version of a familiar setup — the same speed carries him past the detail that changes everything. One answer in the timed sitting was reached by a method that would have worked on a slightly different question, and he had no reason to doubt it.
Try this
After reading, ask: why would my first method work here? If Rohan can't say, he should pause before starting.
Keeping track and covering every case
Two habits showed up in the carrying-out stage. Rohan stopped searching too early on 1 of 5 chances untimed, and on 2 of 3 chances timed — missing valid answers that sat just beyond where he stopped looking. He also lost track of earlier results on 2 of 5 timed chances, compared to none of 2 untimed. Both habits were uncaught each time they appeared.
Arithmetic slips happened in both sittings: once untimed, once timed. The untimed slip was caught and corrected without prompting, which is exactly right. The timed slip was not caught. Rohan's working is generally clear, but under time pressure he trusts it without going back.
Try this
Encourage Rohan to write each result with a label — not just a number, but what that number means — so he can see at a glance what he has and hasn't covered.
Testing the answer before finishing
Rohan never accepted an answer that didn't fit the question, and he never abandoned a correct approach across either sitting. When he checked, he checked well: on the untimed sitting he verified gear turns for all three gears as a natural final step, and on the combination lock he caught his own arithmetic slip mid-calculation and corrected it calmly.
The gap is that checking happened less under the clock. The timed sitting produced one uncaught arithmetic slip and two answers accepted without being tested against all the conditions in the question. Rohan's instinct to check is real; the habit of always doing it, regardless of time, is still forming.
Try this
Ask Rohan to test his answer against every condition before he moves on — not just the main one, but any smaller ones the question also set.
What the clock changed
The most striking shift between the two sittings is in planning time. Untimed, Rohan spent 33% of his time planning before working. Timed, that fell to 15%, while working time rose from 51% to 67%. He ran out of time on one question. The reduction in planning is not simply about pace: it maps directly onto the habits that appeared under the clock — misreading, jumping to familiar methods, stopping searches early — none of which appeared, or appeared far less, in the untimed sitting.
Rohan's untimed performance was strong: 11 of 12 correct, with one slip caught and corrected. The timed sitting produced 6 of 12 correct, with the same habits appearing repeatedly and none caught. The difference is not in what Rohan knows. It is in whether he takes the time to read and plan before he starts working.
Try this
In timed practice, ask Rohan to spend the first thirty seconds of every question only reading — no writing until he can say what the question is asking.
How we know
Every count here is worked out from Rohan’s answers, not estimated, and every quote is checked word for word against what he said. We describe what happened, not why: the reasons behind a habit are for you to explore together.
03 · With time, and against the clock
What changed when the clock started
Each bar shows how often a habit appeared, out of the questions where it could have. Hover the question mark beside a habit to see what it means, with an example.
A filled bar is how often the habit cost something. A green edge is a time he noticed and fixed it himself. An empty bar means it never happened.
04 · Question by question
All 24, and what happened on each
Open any group to see how Rohan handled each question. Start with the lost marks; the rest is here if you want it.
The questions are blurred in this sample, and only in this sample. A question a parent can read in advance is a question that can be drilled, and then it tells us nothing. Your own report prints all 24 in full, next to exactly what you see here.
The two sittings use different questions. Several timed questions are built on the same idea as an untimed one with something deliberately changed — a condition loosened, two steps swapped round. That is how we tell a method that was understood from one that was remembered.
Where the marks went7worth reading
What happened
Spotted the combined rule and used digit sums cleverly, but stopped listing at 82 and missed 142, giving 2 instead of 3.
Answer: 3
What he was thinking
He grasps the combined rule instantly and uses digit sums to test divisibility by three — a smart shortcut. He seems to assume the list is nearly done after four candidates and stops at 82, not noticing the range runs all the way to 200.
What happened
Tried five different jump sequences, kept landing on even numbers, then guessed eleven jumps without spotting that stone 1 is impossible to reach.
Answer: it can't be done
What he was thinking
He treats this as a search problem, trying sequence after sequence and checking whether he hits stone 1. He spots the boundary rule correctly but never pauses to notice that every position he reaches is even, which would reveal that stone 1 is permanently out of reach. He gives up and guesses.
What happened
Correctly spotted multiples of 12 plus 1, listed six numbers up to 85, but stopped there and missed 97, giving 6 instead of 7.
Answer: 7
What he was thinking
He immediately sees that both remainder conditions point to multiples of 12, and lists the sequence confidently and correctly. He counts six numbers but does not check whether the sequence continues before 100, so 97 goes unnoticed.
What happened
Correctly counted codes with exactly two dials the same (270) but forgot to add the ten all-same codes, giving 270 instead of 280.
Answer: 280
What he was thinking
He treats this as a multiplication-of-choices problem straight away, correctly spotting the repeated digit, its position, and the odd digit out. He focuses entirely on the "exactly two" case and never pauses to ask whether "at least two" means he should also count the ten codes where all three dials show the same digit.
What happened
Misread Ann's share as a third of the total rather than a third of what Bob and Cal get, then solved fluently for that version, reaching £90 instead of £40.
Answer: £40
What he was thinking
He locks onto "a third" and immediately treats it as a third of the total, setting up algebra with confidence. He tracks Bob and Cal's shares correctly relative to Ann, adds everything neatly, and trusts the algebra completely — never returning to the exact wording to check what Ann's third is actually a third of.
What happened
The answer didn’t come out right. What was said is below.
Answer: 5
What he was thinking
He has met this deal before, so he runs the two steps in the order he practised rather than the order printed. When the answer comes out the same as last time, that feels like confirmation instead of a warning.
What happened
Added the three percentage changes together to get 15%, then divided £88 by 1.15, arriving at £76.52 instead of £80.
Answer: £80
What he was thinking
He spots the three changes straight away and reaches for a shortcut: add them up into one. Once he has 15% he divides confidently, notices the answer looks like an odd price, but trusts his arithmetic and accepts it without going back to check each step.
Right, but the method wouldn’t always work2worth a conversation
What happened
Recalled 72 as the shared teeth count from a related problem, divided by 8, and correctly got 9 turns of gear C.
Answer: 9
What he was thinking
He treats this as a problem he has already partly solved, recalls 72 as the shared teeth count without recalculating, then focuses entirely on the final step: dividing by C's 8 teeth. He does not pause to verify that A and B also complete whole turns.
What happened
Spotted the gaps grow by one each time, named the inputs "adding-up numbers", listed them to find 55 is tenth, and gave 9.
Answer: 9
What he was thinking
He homes in on the differences between inputs straight away, names them "adding-up numbers", then lists the whole sequence to find where 55 sits. He checks the rule on two given examples before committing, and moves confidently to the answer without hesitation.
Slipped, then caught it1a good sign
What happened
Labelled the six starting positions, traced each through the dealing, caught a slip mid-way, and correctly found the bottom card was 3.
Answer: 3
What he was thinking
He treats this as a position-tracking puzzle, labelling each slot and following it through the dealing sequence. He focuses on which slot gets dealt when, catches himself when the remaining order shifts mid-way, corrects it, and reaches the right answer confidently.
Solid, nothing to flag14skim if you like
What happened
Spotted that two fives minus three threes equals one, built a valid five-jump route staying above zero, and gave the correct answer of five.
Answer: 5
What he was thinking
He treats this as an arithmetic puzzle from the start, looking for combinations of fives and threes that total one. Once he finds two fives minus three threes equals one, he quickly builds a valid route and checks it stays above zero, without pausing to ask whether fewer jumps might work.
What happened
Spotted that Ana pays in every round including wins, calculated net gain of 9, and worked back to 21. Answer: 21.
Answer: 21
What he was thinking
He spots immediately that Ana pays in every round, wins or not, and treats this as the hinge of the whole problem. He calculates total paid out and total won separately, finds a net gain of 9, works back to 21, then pauses to double-check the pot size.
What happened
Planned the three choices correctly, caught an arithmetic slip mid-calculation, and reached 270.
Answer: 270
What he was thinking
He immediately spots that "exactly two" rules out all-three-same, then breaks the count into three independent choices. He treats the position of the odd digit as the key step. When his multiplication gives a wrong number, he notices without prompting and recalculates calmly.
What happened
Spotted that 5 can only sit next to 1, so cannot have two neighbours in the circle, and concluded zero arrangements are possible.
Answer: 0
What he was thinking
He homes in on 5 as the hardest number to place, works out it can only sit next to 1, then uses the two-neighbours rule to conclude no arrangement can work. He never tries a single example; it is pure constraint reasoning from start to finish.
What happened
Wrote each share as a fraction of the total, spotted that £15 fills the missing sixth, and checked 30+40+20=90. Answer: £90.
Answer: £90
What he was thinking
He frames this as algebra from the start, naming the total t and converting every share into a fraction of t. His attention is on the leftover constant terms — once he spots that £15 must fill the remaining sixth of t, the answer follows immediately.
What happened
Spotted that all gears move the same number of teeth, found the LCM as 72 by prime factorisation, and verified all three gears give whole turns. Answer: 6.
Answer: 6
What he was thinking
He immediately sees that equal teeth passing is the key constraint, frames it as a lowest common multiple problem without hesitation, and uses prime factorisation fluently. He then checks all three gears, treating verification as a natural final step.
What happened
Built the code digit by digit from 9, checking each factor or multiple link, and reached 93628 correctly.
Answer: 93628
What he was thinking
He locks onto a greedy strategy immediately: start as high as possible and pick the biggest valid next digit. He works through each step confidently, stating the divisibility reason aloud, and finishes by confirming all digits are different.
What happened
Spotted that each swap fixes exactly one wrong-order pair, used the combination formula to count 10 such pairs, and gave the answer 10.
Answer: 10
What he was thinking
He goes straight to the structural heart of the problem, treating "how many pairs are in the wrong order" as the key question. He applies the combination formula with confidence and checks that every pair is wrong. He never tests a small case or verifies by actually doing the swaps.
What happened
Spotted that 5 can only sit next to 1 or 9, built the row outward from there, and checked all eight pairs. Answer: 1 5 9 4 8 3 7 2 6.
Answer: 1 5 9 4 8 3 7 2 6
What he was thinking
He homes in on 5 as the key number straight away, reasoning that only 1 and 9 are far enough from it. Once that anchor is set, he builds the rest of the row in one go and then checks every neighbouring gap methodically, counting each difference aloud.
What happened
Split the problem by where the sevens sit, counted 26 three-digit numbers, then added 77 to reach the correct answer of 27.
Answer: 27
What he was thinking
He treats this as a positions problem immediately, placing the two sevens in each pair of positions in a three-digit number and carefully excluding forbidden digits. He then remembers to check two-digit numbers, spotting 77 without prompting.
What happened
Spotted that 1 and 12 fit anywhere, built the circle 1,2,4,12,6,3 around them, checked every pair, and answered yes.
Answer: yes
What he was thinking
He immediately treats 1 and 12 as anchors because they divide or multiply with anything. He builds the whole circle from that single insight, then checks every neighbouring pair in turn before giving his answer.
What happened
Started from 1, picked the smallest valid digit at each step, checked every neighbouring pair, and reached 12639.
Answer: 12639
What he was thinking
He locks onto a greedy strategy immediately: start at 1 and keep each next digit as small as possible. He builds the chain confidently without hesitation, then checks every neighbouring pair to confirm the factor-or-multiple rule holds in each direction.
What happened
Tracked the head count after each move, spotted it stays odd, and proved all tails (zero heads) is impossible. Answer: it can't be done.
Answer: it can't be done
What he was thinking
He frames this as a tracking problem from the start, watching what happens to the head count. He tries one move, considers several outcomes of a second, spots the count is always odd, then reasons why: flipping always changes the count by an even number. He connects this to zero being even to clinch the answer.
What happened
Built up the four numbers (1, 2, 3, 6) from the smallest total, checked all six pair-totals matched, and gave the answer 5.
Answer: 5
What he was thinking
He treats this as a number-building puzzle, anchoring on the smallest total to pin down 1 and 2, then deducing 3 and 6 from the next totals. Once he has all four numbers he lists every pair-total and spots the missing one without hesitation.
05 · What’s already secure
Strengths worth telling Rohan about
Spots the one number that breaks everything
“Five is the difficult one. Up to six, the only things that go with five are one and five itself, so five has only one possible neighbour.”
On the six numbers circle and the nine in a row, Rohan found the hardest-to-place number first and built his answer outward from there.
Catches his own slips mid-calculation
“Hang on, ten times nine is ninety, not eighty. Let me redo it”
On the combination lock, Rohan noticed his multiplication was wrong without being prompted and corrected it calmly before moving on.
Holds a clean line of reasoning to the end
“Nine heads. Turn four, that's five heads. Turn four more, it's one, or five, or nine. Odd every time. Because you flip some heads down and some tails up, the change is always even, so odd stays odd. All tails is zero, which is even, so no, it can't be done.”
On the nine coins, Rohan tracked one quantity all the way to a proof, even under the clock. The reasoning was complete and correct.
06 · What to do next
Three things to do over the next week or two
This is what everything above adds up to. Each one works on a habit rather than a question, so it carries over to questions Rohan has never seen. If you only do one thing, do the first.
Jumps to a familiar method
Say the method aloud before writing anything
Give Rohan any unfamiliar maths puzzle. Before he writes a single number, ask him to say out loud: 'My plan is to…' and finish the sentence. Then ask: 'Is there anything in the question that would stop that plan working?' Only then let him start. Listen for whether he mentions a condition from the question or just names a technique.
On the coat price changes, Rohan added three percentages together — a familiar shortcut — without checking whether that rule applies when changes happen one after another. This happened on 5 of the 9 timed questions where it could.
Stops searching too early
Name the boundary before starting a list
Whenever Rohan starts listing numbers or cases, stop him after his first entry and ask: 'Where does this list have to end, and why?' Have him say the upper limit out loud. When he finishes, ask him to check his last entry is genuinely the last possible one, not just the last one he thought of.
On the PE teams, Rohan stopped his list at 85 and missed 97. In the untimed sitting he stopped at 82 and missed 142. Naming the boundary first makes it obvious when the list is done.
Misreads the wording
Retell the question before solving it
After Rohan reads a question, ask him to close or cover it and tell you in his own words: what is given, and what exactly is he being asked to find? If he cannot say both clearly, he reads again. Do this before every question during practice this week. Listen for whether his retelling matches the question or quietly changes it.
On the three shares, against the clock, Rohan retold 'a third of what Bob and Cal get' as 'a third of the total' and then solved fluently for the wrong problem. Both misreads this sitting went uncaught.
07 · For a tutor
Something to forward
If your child works with a tutor, this says what to spend time on and what to leave alone.
Rohan's main cost this sitting was jumping to a familiar method before checking it fits — this happened on 5 of 9 timed questions and lost 4 answers, including the coat price changes (adding percentages in sequence) and the three shares (misreading which third Ann receives). Secondary priorities: stopping a search before the list is complete (3 questions, both sittings) and losing track of what an earlier result meant when a later step depended on it (2 timed questions). Leave alone: constraint reasoning from a hard-to-place number, catching arithmetic slips mid-calculation, and proof by tracking a single quantity — all secure.
Next
One sitting under time pressure is a snapshot, not a verdict. The untimed sitting showed what Rohan can do when he has room to think; the timed sitting showed exactly which habits need shoring up before the clock matters. All answers have been confirmed and no results are under review.
This is what you receive after both sittings. Yours will say something different, because it is built from your child’s own words.
Get the pack · £129Two sittings of about an hour, a few days apart.