I partly agree with each of you. There are a lot of components to talk about, but here’s how I see it:
Overall solution CAS leaders implemented under difficult circumstances – 3 out of 5 (Low score due to an inflexible process that only works for a majority of candidates. One or two people’s good experience doesn’t equal a success here. The fairness of every single person’s exam matters. Score would have been lower, but giving leadership some credit for the unique challenges faced.)
Transparency of decisions to exam candidates – 2 out of 5
Making decisions based on doing the right thing – 1 out of 5 (Decisions were largely made based on what “looks good” in front of the public, and therefore decisions were very reactionary. Even the “right” decision can have corrupt motives.)
Bottom line for me – I agree with the OP. Replace CAS leadership for failing to recognize how important exams are to people’s careers. This exam sitting was mediocre. Other organizations might find this acceptable, but we are the CAS! Our exam process has existed for many, many years, and needs to uphold the highest of standards. Candidates having a terrible experience even 10% of the time is unacceptable.
Next sitting, it might be you.