Its an open forum, not a court of law and hearsay is just that; so with genuine respect to all posters
I write what follows.
There are Trainers and Assessors. Some Assessors also train, but Trainers cannot Assess. Outwith some if the existing schemes for training standards/ course content there is actually very little to prevent anyone claiming to be a trainer or offer courses. However, the test can only be delivered/administered by an Assessor.
Assessors are appointed ad subject to ongoing control by Centres within the DMQ organisation. Their work is subject to scrutiny -
a part of which is the internal and external verification process which has cropped up on other threads. There are other checks and balances.
An Assessor may use suitably qualified Witnesses/ Assistants to deliver an Assessment, but he/she must be in overall control and the buck ( forgive pun ) stops with them.
There will be variations within the structure of the scheme in terms of how specific tests are conducted - most often within the dictates of the ground / facilities used - eg some ranges prohibit expanding ammo. But any variance from a fairly narrow 'norm' should be reported by the Assessor in his report back to HQ with the test papers. Said papers do get scrutinised more closely than you would think.
A perfect system and completely goof proof? No - not sure any has yet been invented that is. But the will and mechanisms ( improving all the time ) are there to pick up issues and make changes. I guarantee you that 'powers that be' read Sd and read threads such as this and that comments 'of concern' receive attention.
Turning to Stratts OP - the Assessment is detailed in your DSC manual, you'll have the questions in there and likely commentary as to how they are applied. Depending on which manual, something's can take a bit of 'reverse thinking' to piece together - eg; you will be required to identify 4 deer cut-outs as being safe/unsafe to shoot. To realistically and sensibly achieve that there are going to be more than 4 - simply because there has to be at least 1 safe shot cut-out as a sense check and the terrain may offer certain opportunities and not others.
All the directions regards this element concern the safe/ unsafe decision - it isnt a test of finding/seeing the thing
you should not find the cut outs difficult to locate. However, to allow a good analysis of the cut-out and it's surrounding area binoculars are a good idea. 99.9% of centres will have a loan pair as the DSC1 remains a foundation course and maybe taken by people who have yet to 'gear up'. There is no time limit - ( in back reference to another thread that mentioned 'pens down' instruction on a written test ) - to this part or any other. So take your time and think things through. There are no tricks - it is pure a test of the knowledge/ requirements as laid out in the manual - but that does entail close observation
The Safety element requires the demonstration of safe load/unload, conduct and carry with a rifle. These should be demonstrated. In certain instances it can be acceptable to replace demonstration with description - this again would be highlighted in the Assessors report.
Gear - you are not assessed on how natty your real bush/mossy cloak/ disadvantage DPM/Muticoloured Swap shop mega deathe zero pong IRR stealth suit is. But clothing and footwear appropriate to the terrain and weather is the way to go. In this case, you have the additional element of a film crew to consider though.
I think a very useful thread - again Stratts
- it often seems that the uncertainty/ unknown is a bigger hurdle than the actual learning of DSC1 content. I would just ask Stratts ( as he has already been doing ) to feedback how things actually went for him and to keep in mind all such elements as this that were issues beforehand.