I am going to be very cautious here, because clearly we are in uncharted territory.
From this thread here viewtopic.php?f=12&t=32379&p=381054#p381054
An important implication of this is that the only score that will equate directly to previous tests is 121. No other score will equate directly, thus, for example an ‘old’ score of 110 will in future be a ‘new’ score of about 98.
None of this undermines the fact that the standardisation process puts all pupils on the same scale regardless of their chronological age at the time of testing. Even though the ‘old’ score was 110 and the new score is 98 this does not mean either score indicates the child is more or less able than the other – YOU CANNOT DIRECTLY COMPARE OLD AND NEW SCORES EXCEPT AT THE POINT OF 121.
So, an old score of 110 would be a score of 98 for the new test. For the old test it would be fair to say that, other than in a very few exceptional cases, 110 was the absolute minimum score for lodging an appeal.
The corollary of that for the new test suggests to me that the absolute minimum score for an appeal would be around 100.
Scores above 110 might equate to the 116 plus "benchmark" that we used to use as being "could be a good shot".
I'm not sure about the breakdown of the individual papers. I need to check with gurus who understand standardisation before posting more about that!