| Matthew Chen | 32.5 | 4 | — | A3: strong on Hamer, but missed A4 entirely |
| Sarah Kim | 68 | 2 | 2 | Shaky on good-faith forbearance (Dyer) |
| James Wilson | 44.5 | 3 | 2 | Can't explain why consideration is required |
| Marcus Brennan | 34 | 1 | 3 | Struggles applying Hamer & Dyer to new facts |
| Priya Raman | 71 | 2 | — | A3: confuses surrender of a right with forbearance; no A4 |
| Elena Vasquez | 58 | 4 | 3 | Identifies issues, weak on counter-arguments |
| Devon Carter | 72 | 3 | 2 | Cites Dyer but misses the 'doubtful claim' element |
| Aisha Mohammed | 62 | 5 | 3 | Knows the rule, weak on the policy rationale |
| Hannah Goldberg | 60.5 | 2 | 4 | Improving on Hamer, still inconsistent |
| Tyrone Jackson | 76 | 3 | 3 | Solid analysis, only argues one side |
| Liam O'Connor | 88 | 5 | 4 | Mastery across all four objectives |
| Nora Bellamy | 91.5 | 4 | 5 | Strong Hamer/Dyer application, both sides |
| Kai Nakamura | 78 | 5 | 4 | Clear on consideration doctrine and policy |