Thanks once more - I really appreciate your diligence and thoroughness.
But as you describe things more fully, my concern only increases. And I must confess that I don't see that boards take different approaches - Pearson says that a senior examiner does the review, but they confirm that the original mark will be changed only if there is an "error", as defined by a failure to comply with the mark scheme; OCR also say "only changing marks to correct marking error".
None of this is what I think it should be - a professional second opinion, a re-mark by a senior examiner to ensure that the student is awarded the "definitive" grade. This confirms - as I feared - that it is possible that a script can be marked by an ordinary examiner such that there are no "marking errors", yet result in a "non-definitive" grade. With the sting-in-the-tail that this cannot be corrected by the "appeals" process.
If that is the case - as it appears to be - then about 280,000 GCSE English students will get the wrong grade this summer, with no right of appeal. OK, 140,000 are lucky, getting a grade higher. But 140,000 will get a grade too low, and be stuck. If that happens at the 4/3 boundary, that's a killer - how many students will lose a year and be forced to re-sit just because of this? And what about all the other subjects, and - as you say - the impact on uni entrance?
You are right that "the system is clearly not perfect". But surely, surely, it can be a lot better.