I've read the referenced letter (including the notes about what ought to be omitted!) - and whilst it applies ok for an appeal, I'm not sure how to apply it for a selection review - especially as we have the 'problem' that there was no 'problem' per se. That is, she wasn't ill, there was no bereavement, etc.
I don't see the difference between a review and an appeal in terms of what you write. If you haven't any extenuating circumstances, then you're not in a position to write about extenuating circumstances for either process.
If there is a difference, it has more to do with 'expectations' - a review panel is said to expect exceptional circumstances, whereas an appeal panel has no such rule.
(In practice it may not be quite that simple. I find it difficult to believe that every successful review really has exceptional circumstances. And there may be individual appeal panel members who do
expect extenuating circumstances, especially where the score is a long way short of 121.)
So, what do we hang the selection review justification on?
Unfortunately, we can't invent an answer!
'Panic' is speculation, and there's no proof.
The reason may well be that the result was a 'blip' - but that's not the sort of argument you probably want to put to a review panel that includes GS heads whose system this is!
Sorry - there are no easy answers!
(P.S. Mods - if this should be a new topic, or placed elsewhere, please let me know and I'll sort it.)
We've moved it for you.