SAR and marking discrepancy

Sorry for the longish post... but I really hope everyone reads through this.

@Ian Senator would love your inputs on this.

I received my SAR for the April 2021 exam and it was... well.. weird.

Marker 1 had given me 53/100 and marker 2 had given me 59/100 (which was a pass i suppose since the pass mark for SP8 was 59). Marker 3 (the script review) ended up giving me a 53.5/100. All well until this point.

However, for quite a few of the questions that were marked the markers, I am not finding a sufficient reason for why the marks have been deducted. Some examples below:

Question 2 (part 1) - State the desirable quantities of complement of credibility

This is a 3 mark question. I am assuming here that 6 reasonably generated points should fetch 3 marks. It's a knowledge based question as far as my understanding goes and the material comes straight from the acted content.

I generated around 7 points.

Marker 1 - 2.5/3, Marker 2 - 3/3, Marker 3 - 2.5/3
Marks lost - 0.5
Cumulative marks lost = 0.5

So why did I lose a 0.5 here? As far as the indicative solution goes, I have provided all the details necessary to indicate the markers that I have gotten a good and in-depth understanding of the subject matter being tested right? Why would a marker reduce a 0.5 for this question?

Question 9 (part 1) - Pricing question
The indicative solution mentions that the final answer is $7.83m. My answer (and I have shown all the steps that should be shown here) is $7.92m. I am assuming that the difference in results is due to rounding (I used excel to calculate the burning cost).

My large loss loading and the generic logic used to inflate claims, etc. is matching perfectly with the indicative solution.

I had come up with 6 assumptions (with some matching the indicative solutions). For instance, no change in business mix, etc., inflation applied equally to large and small losses etc.

Marker 1 - 5.5/7, Marker 2 - 6/7, Marker 3 - 5.5/7

Why is this discrepancy coming up? In my opinion, I have demonstrated the exact thing that the institute is looking for. Why have the markers penalized me 1.5 marks here? I have shown all the workings. I have put a significant number of assumptions and yet, the examiner is telling me that I have not met the standards for getting full credit. Why? So what more should i write here? I am at a complete loss of understanding and words for this question.

Marks lost - 1.5
Cumulative marks lost - 2

Question 9 (part 2) - Additional information required for pricing
Once again, this is a question for which I feel the institute keeps changing the goal post. In one exam in 2019, it was enough if you wrote TCPRICE. In the next exam, they wanted additional details (like a split between large loss/cat losses, etc) and now, they want students to write an answer that is tailored to the situation.

My answer focused on soft factors that the actuary would require to obtain the final premiums.... such as premiums paid last year and competitor premiums that are available... This is the kind of solution that was also present on the indicative solutions in the past papers.

Yet, the indicative solutions now say that we need to tailor the answer to the product at hand.... which I feel is a little unfair. It feel a little like shifting the goalposts each time this question gets asked.

Marker 1 - 0.5/3, Marker 2 - 1.5/3, Marker 3 - 1/3.

Marks lost - 2
Cumulative marks lost - 4

Question 9 (part 3) - calculate gross premium and state assumptions
The indicative solution gives 2 marks for the working and (I am assuming here) 1 mark for the assumptions.

Let us assume that the assumptions I have made are completely inaccurate for a moment. I thus have 2 marks that I can get if the assumption here is that my assumptions are dead incorrect.

I have shown all my workings and have arrived at 13.314m (the answer in the solution is 13.4 mil).

If my answer is aligned with the solution, isn't the understanding that I have used the correct formulae to arrive at the answer? Doesn't that mean that I should get the 2 marks?

Marker 1 - 1/3, Marker 2 - 2/3, Marker 3 - 1/3

Marks lost - 2
Cumulative marks lost - 5

Question 3 (part 1) - Compare direct and indirect expenses
This is a 4 mark question, and a knowledge based question. The question is asking for a straight comparison.
My answer focused on:
1. Definition of direct/indirect expense and how direct exp varies with the volume of business
2. Example of direct and indirect expenses
3. Difference between how direct and indirect expenses can be allocated

This is also the content of the indicative solution. So why have I been penalized here by 2 marks? What more do I need to write to establish a full mark here?

Marker 1 - 2/4, Marker 2 - 2.5/4, Marker 3 - 2/4

Marks lost - 2
Cumulative marks lost - 7

And this is just part of the paper. I've got more examples from other parts of the paper.

I can understanding losing marks on a subjective question that has room for interpretation. Losing marks on a higher order or application question where the answers are often subjective is to me part and parcel. In the last question, for example, I am sure the examiners have penalized marks for not using buzzwords like big data and blockchain... I can understand this and I feel I am sort of ok with this.

But I cannot understand the loss of marks on a question where the answer is a number or the answer is derived from the book.

And If you have followed, I would have gone from 53 to 60 because of this.... putting me from a fail to a pass.

To the tutors, what more should i write for these questions? What more should i show? I don't see this as a problem with my answers anymore. Kindly do let me know if there's any avenue for an appeal.