Exam 7 is becoming less about actuarial judgment and more about decoding the examiner's thinking
The Spring 2026 Exam 7 raw pass rate was 23.7%. That deserves an explanation from the Examination Committee.
As a repeat candidate (my last three results were 5, 5, and 4), I don't believe the issue is simply that the exam is more difficult.
The problem is that the nature of the questions seems to have changed.
Instead of primarily assessing reserving concepts and professional judgment, more questions appear to focus on reverse reasoning—requiring candidates to reconstruct information or infer intermediate steps before they can even begin the actuarial analysis. This adds complexity without clearly measuring better actuarial competence.
Another concern is the wording. Some questions feel written in an individual actuary's internal working language rather than the standardized terminology used throughout the syllabus. Candidates spend valuable exam time trying to interpret what the examiner means instead of demonstrating reserving knowledge.
Professional exams should challenge actuarial thinking—not candidates' ability to decode ambiguous wording or solve puzzles under severe time pressure.
This is not a request for an easier exam.
It is a request for transparency. A professional examination should reward actuarial expertise, not familiarity with the examiner's personal way of thinking.
I urge the Examination Committee to initiate a formal investigation into the Spring 2026 Exam 7 sitting and publicly address candidates’ concerns.