Hi, I wanted to confirm what we can we be tested on in terms of bookwork - for example, question one in the X2 assignment asks for the definition of the multifactor model, but in the course notes this is not part of the core notes (i.e. in bold) - I usually split the testable bookwork and proofs as the stuff in bold and I'm a bit thrown off now. Thanks!

The multifactor model is described in the text of the Core Reading, whereas the assignment question is looking for a mathematical representation (as suggested by the mention of 'notation'). If you reclassify that question as 'non-bookwork', since the answer can't be directly copied out of the the Core Reading, would that help?

Thank you Steve for your response. I am not sure I totally understand. The main aim of my question it to get a better grip on how to define what I need to learn as bookwork. The multifactor model is described in the core reading, but not mathematically - the mathematical formula is in the CPD notes though and pretty much a copy and paste from the CPD notes. Should I expect to possibly be asked to give the mathematical representation, with definitions of terms, in the exam, even though it looks like this is no longer part of the Core Reading but more to aid understanding? This particular example is not my main area of concern, it is more so the latter chapters such as Ito's Lemma etc, where there is a lot of additional formulae and proofs/explanations for formulas, but are not presented as being part of the Core Reading. I am concerned that if I focus on core reading to define the proofs or bookwork I can expect there may be other bookwork that is basically bookwork but classified as 'non-bookwork'. I hope this helps to explain my query a little more. Thank you.