Let me give as an example "John". John scored 114, has a "2" recommendation, middle 25%, predicted 4/5s for KS2. Horrendous extenuating circumstances, ongoing for 1-2 years, affecting 11+ and depressing curriculum results, but thankfully now at an end. Parents say that John is actually very bright. He achieved straight 3s at KS1. His school reports before the extenuating circumstances are exceptionally good. He has a VR CAT score of 129 in September of year 3, and 130 in September of year 4. His current academic achievements may not be impressive, but there is plenty of evidence of high ability.
Then there is "Janet". Janet scored 120 and 114, has a "1" recommendation, top 25%, predicted straight 5s for KS2. Janet shines in class because she is so hardworking and enthusiastic. All her subject reports put the emphasis on how diligent she is. If there is a criticism, it is that she works slowly. Her previous CAT VR scores are 114 and 110. There are no extenuating circumstances. The panel conclude that Janet achieves her results through sheer hard work, is not quite as bright as her school thinks, and that 114 - or perhaps the average of the scores, 117 - is a better indicator of her ability than 120.
Would it be inconsistent for a panel to uphold John's appeal but not Janet's?