I may be overthinking this idea that the data and other things should be introduced before they are used/talked about in the audit trail. Does the following in the audit trail seem okay: Data section - just states what data we have and where it comes from. Assumptions - including something like "Data is accurate subject to the adjustments detailed later in this document" Raw data worksheet - including something like "this sheet has just raw data of x type.. some checks.." (these checks may involve the assumptions.) Adjusted data worksheet - detailing the adjustments made. It feels like this isn't ideal since the adjustments are refered to in the assumptions before I've actually said what these assumptions are? But I think it's better than discussing the two data worksheets before the assumptions as it feels like quite often the assumptions are relevant to the checks? None of this is fixed of course - the exam might not require all these steps.
Audit trail marking schemes usually have marks for using a logical order, one of which is for something like "the methodology is described in a logical order i.e. nothing is introduced which would require that the reader has read ahead". I think most model solutions therefore do all the data explanation before the assumptions section. I think the approach you've used is probably fine though - you've signposted to a bit of information that's explained later, but I'm not sure that means that you need to have read that part in order to understand the document. You're right that the actual format of your answer might need to change, depending on the steps required in the exam paper. The Examiners will give credit for any reasonable approach.
