The whole point is that the powers to be have decided that if you are Grammar ability in Bucks you will score 121 or above.
The 'powers to be' are of course the grammar schools themselves
It is my opinion that reviews and appeals should be about correctly placing DC who have been unfairly disadvantaged by the one day test system, untutored DC being your classic examples or interrupted tests. In those cases their score should be ignored in favour of evidence of academic ability and or a solid reason of way DC was unable to perform on a one day test.
But surely this is what a review and/or appeal is about? How can a panel ignore the score when they are looking for sufficient academic evidence and/or mitigating circumstances as to why the child did not pass the test? The wider the gap in marks away from 121 (and there has to be some sort of cut off point) the stronger the evidence would have to be presumably.
Interesting review figures though but surely they also suggest that the Review Panels are not just looking at the score or why have more lower scoring children been admitted?