A further thought about the "should I include/not include explanation of TWRR and MWRR" occurred to me today.
I believe that one of the previous posters is correct in saying that Mr Colin Spragg, as a trustee of the scheme, should be able to take a bit more technical explanation.
In fact, under Trustee Knowledge and Understanding requirements of the 2004 Pensions Act (sections 247-249, it says here), trustees are
required "to have knowledge and understanding of the law relating to pensions and trusts and the principles relating to the funding of occupational schemes
and the investment of scheme assets."
Furthermore, it states specifically in the Pensions Regulator's guidance (
http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/pdf/scopeGuidanceDBDC.pdf, unit 9b) that trustees should have working knowledge of "the principles of fund management and how performance can be measured", including "Measuring performance including the use of indices."
In short, it would be
incorrect, under current UK legislation, for marks to be deducted for including clear and relevant explanations of TWRR and MWRR.
(Of course, you may argue "well, we're not necessarily in the UK". Aha, but Mr Spragg is real!
https://secure.creditgate.com/search/search.aspx?AP=Previous&CompanyID=0169723802&CompanyType=O )