Edexcel GCSE Computer Science (1CP2) Exam Questions

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• Permission/agreement given by an individual (1)
• For their personal data to be collected/used/processed (1)
• Given freely, without pressure (1)
• The individual is told/understands what their data will be used for (1)

Allow agree, agreement, approve, approval, 'a user says yes', opting in for permission/agreement.

Award the second mark only where the answer also states that permission/agreement is given; 'personal data is collected' on its own is not a definition of consent.

Do not accept 'consent is a legal requirement' (this says why consent is needed, not what it means).

Do not accept 'the user accepts the terms and conditions' on its own (it does not say what is being agreed to, e.g. the use of personal data).

Do not accept 'a company tells the user what data it will collect' on its own (no permission is given).

Do not accept 'consent can be withdrawn at any time' on its own (this is a right of the individual, not a definition of consent).

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• A person/organisation (e.g. the developer/company/user) is responsible for the actions/decisions/outputs of the AI system (1)
• Being able to explain/justify how the AI system reached a decision (1)
• Being open to scrutiny/having to report on the AI system's actions (1)
• Accepting blame/being held to account when the AI system causes harm or loss (1)

Naming the responsible party (e.g. the developer) on its own is not a separate mark; it must be linked to responsibility for the system's actions/decisions/outputs.

Do not accept the AI system/robot itself being described as accountable or blamed.

Do not accept 'being fair/transparent' without a person/organisation being answerable for the system.

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• A company/brand name (1)
• A product name (1)
• A logo (1)
• A symbol (1)
• A slogan (1)

Allow 'logo' and 'symbol' as two separate points if both are given.

Do not accept 'name' or 'brand' on its own.

Do not accept an invention (this is protected by a patent).

Do not accept software code (this is protected by copyright).

Do not accept other methods of intellectual property protection, e.g. patent/copyright.

Do not accept 'a design' on its own; allow if qualified as a logo/brand design.

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• Copying the software (1)
• Sharing/redistributing the software (1)
• Selling the software/copies of it (1)
• Renting/lending the software (1)
• Modifying/changing the software (1)
• Installing the software on more devices than the licence allows (1)
• Using the software without a valid licence (1)

Allow pirating/illegal copying (for copying the software).

Allow distributing/passing on (for sharing/redistributing the software).

Allow editing/changing/reverse engineering the code (for modifying the software).

Treat each restriction as a separate point; copying the software and sharing/redistributing it are different restrictions.

Do not accept 'using the software' on its own.

Award up to two marks for a linked description such as:

• The source code is not released/kept by the developer (1) so users cannot view or change the code (1)
• The user must buy/pay for a licence (1) before the software can be installed/used (1)
• Only the compiled program is supplied (1) so the user cannot modify/adapt the software (1)
• The software cannot be shared/copied (1) because this would break the terms of the licence (1)

Do not accept 'it costs money' on its own, with no reference to buying a licence.

Do not accept characteristics of open-source software, e.g. the source code is available to edit.

Award up to two marks for a linked description such as:

• The software must not be sold (1) so it remains free for other users to obtain (1)
• The source code must be included when the software is shared (1) so anyone who receives it can also study/change it (1)
• Any modified version must be released under the same licence (1) so the software stays open-source for future users (1)

A valid condition on its own can earn one mark; the second mark is for a linked development of the effect.

Do not accept 'the user is not allowed to change the source code' or 'a fee must be paid' as these are conditions of proprietary software.

Do not accept 'it is free' or 'anyone can use it' as these do not describe a condition.

Award up to two marks for a linked explanation such as:

• The programmer must not sell/redistribute the software for profit (1) because the licence requires it to remain free for other users (1)
• The programmer must make the source code available (1) so that other programmers can study/improve it (1)
• The programmer must share any changes they make (1) so that other users benefit from the improvements (1)
• The programmer must release a modified version under the same licence (1) so that the software stays open-source (1)
• The programmer must keep the original copyright notice (1) so that the original author is identified as the creator of the code (1)

For both marks, the expansion must follow/associate with the statement.

Allow other wordings of a restriction for the first mark, e.g. 'must not charge for it', 'must let other people use their modified version', 'must make the source code available'.

The restriction must be a condition of the licence, not a general good practice, e.g. 'it is good to share' is not creditworthy.

Do not accept 'they cannot use it for business/commercially' without a linked reason.

Do not accept 'they must pay for it' as this is not a restriction of open-source licences.

Do not accept restrictions of a proprietary licence, such as 'they cannot copy the software' or 'they cannot change the source code'.

Do not accept 'the software is free' on its own without a named restriction.

Do not award the second mark for a restatement of the point, e.g. 'so they have to share changes' or 'so the author gets credit' on its own.

Do not award marks twice for the same restriction worded in different ways, e.g. 'share changes' and 'release modified versions under the same licence'.

Indicative content

Risks to employees

• A robot carrying a heavy box could collide with an employee who is using the same walkway, causing serious injury.
• A load could slip from a robot and fall onto an employee working nearby.
• An employee could be trapped between a robot and a fixed object such as a shelving unit.
• A robot that moves unpredictably, for example when its load is uneven, could strike an employee who cannot predict its path.

How the robots' sensors and software could cause harm

• A proximity sensor may fail to detect a person in dark clothing, or someone who steps out suddenly, so the robot does not stop in time.
• A software bug could make a robot move too fast or ignore a stop command from an employee.
• The robot may not have been programmed to respond to an unexpected event, such as a spillage on the floor, and could carry on regardless.
• The robot's machine learning may have been trained in a quiet warehouse, so it does not recognise the busier, more crowded conditions in this factory.
• A delay in processing sensor data could mean the robot reacts too late to a person in its path.

Ways the factory could reduce the risks

• Keep robots and employees apart, for example by using barriers or marked robot-only walkways.
• Fit emergency stop buttons to each robot and train employees to use them.
• Test the robots thoroughly in busy and unusual conditions before they are used alongside employees.
• Limit the speed of the robots and the weight of the loads they carry.
• Fit warning lights and sounds so that employees know when a robot is approaching.
• Record and review near misses so the robots' software and the walkways can be improved.

Levels

• Level 0 (0 marks): No rewardable content.
• Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic, independent points are made, showing elements of understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion will contain basic information with little linkage between points made or application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 2 (3–4 marks): Demonstrates adequate understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion shows some linkages and lines of reasoning with some structure and application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 3 (5–6 marks): Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science to support the discussion being presented. (AO1) The discussion is well developed, with sustained lines of reasoning that are coherent and logically structured, and which clearly apply to the context. (AO2)

Additional guidance

• Do not credit the claim that the robots are automatically safe because they have sensors, or answers that only give benefits such as saving money; these are not safety points.
• Basic, undeveloped points with no linkage between a risk, the robots' sensors or software and a way of reducing it remain at Level 1, even if several are listed; Level 3 requires a sustained discussion across all three bullets.

Indicative content

Who could be held accountable when the AI system gives a patient the wrong priority

• The software company could be held accountable because it designed the AI system and chose the data used to train it.
• The software company may be legally liable for harm caused by its product, because it has a duty of care to the hospital that bought the system.
• The hospital could be held accountable because it decided to buy and use the system in its emergency department.
• A doctor or nurse could be held accountable if they follow the AI's recommendation without examining the patient themselves.
• The hospital management could be held accountable for the policies and training that set out how the AI system is used.

Why it can be difficult to decide who is accountable

• The AI system is a 'black box', so it may not be clear to the hospital why a patient was given a low priority.
• Responsibility is shared between the software company, the hospital and its staff, so each may blame the others.
• The AI system itself cannot be held accountable because it has no understanding of the consequences and only follows its program.
• Hospital staff may not have the technical knowledge to judge whether the software company's system is working correctly.
• The training data may have come from a different hospital or country, so it is hard to say who is responsible for its limitations.

How accountability could be made clearer

• A contract between the hospital and the software company should state who is responsible for the system's recommendations.
• The AI system should be explainable, so that staff can see which factors led to a patient being given a low priority.
• A named doctor should make the final decision, with the AI only giving advice.
• The hospital should keep logs of the AI's recommendations and audit them regularly against how patients actually did.
• Staff should be trained to question a recommendation when the patient's symptoms suggest otherwise.
• The hospital could publish the results of its audits so that the use of the system can be checked by others.

Levels

• Level 0 (0 marks): No rewardable content.
• Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic, independent points are made, showing elements of understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion will contain basic information with little linkage between points made or application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 2 (3–4 marks): Demonstrates adequate understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion shows some linkages and lines of reasoning with some structure and application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 3 (5–6 marks): Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science to support the discussion being presented. (AO1) The discussion is well developed, with sustained lines of reasoning that are coherent and logically structured, and which clearly apply to the context. (AO2)
• Do not credit the AI system itself as being accountable, because it only follows its program. Credit legal liability, such as the software company's duty of care to the hospital, where it is used to explain who could be held accountable.
• Level 3 requires developed reasoning that is applied to the hospital on all three bullets. An answer that names who could be accountable and mentions why it is difficult, but gives no developed way of making accountability clearer, is limited to Level 1.

Indicative content

What copyright protects and how it applies

• Copyright automatically protects the original source code the student has written, so the copied code is an infringement.
• Copyright protects the expression of the app, such as the code and graphics, not the general idea behind it, so another developer could still write a different revision app.
• Because copyright is automatic, the student does not have to apply or pay to get this protection.
• Copyright gives the student the right to decide who can copy, publish or sell the app.
• The student can use copyright to ask the other developer to remove the copied code or to pay for a licence.

How a licence controls use

• The student can release the app under a licence that sets out what buyers are allowed to do with it.
• A licence can limit the app to one user or one device, so a buyer cannot legally share it with others.
• An open source licence allows others to use and modify the code, but only on the conditions that the licence sets out.
• A commercial licence can require payment before the app can be used, which protects the student's income.
• Credit can be given for either a named licence type, such as an open source or a commercial licence, or a licence control mechanism, such as a licence key or online activation.

Benefits and limitations

• Copyright is free and automatic, but it can be difficult to prove that the other developer copied the code rather than wrote similar code.
• A licence makes the rules clear to users, but it only controls legal use and cannot physically stop someone copying the app.
• Combining copyright with a clear licence gives the student both ownership of the code and control over how the app is distributed.

Levels

• Level 0 (0 marks): No rewardable content.
• Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic, independent points are made, showing elements of understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion will contain basic information with little linkage between points made or application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 2 (3–4 marks): Demonstrates adequate understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion shows some linkages and lines of reasoning with some structure and application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 3 (5–6 marks): Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science to support the discussion being presented. (AO1) The discussion is well developed, with sustained lines of reasoning that are coherent and logically structured, and which clearly apply to the context. (AO2)

Additional guidance

• Do not credit security methods such as passwords or firewalls, or patents and trademarks, as protection for the student's app code.
• Level 2 requires each method applied to the app with a benefit or limitation; Level 3 requires both copyright and licencing developed and applied, for example distinguishing the code from the idea behind the app and giving a benefit or limitation for each.