You would think so, Syo. And again the problem comes when information is not specifically included in the rules manual, but appears in examinations at all levels of competition. I would even be happy with adding the infamous "includes, but not limited to...:" line as to permit more latitude. For instance, Potions and Poisons, the rules state, "This part will be a multiple-choice and short answer test covering the following topics:" If it would be worded as (off the top of my head), "Though this is a general science examination, this written part will be a multiple-choice and short answer test covering - but not limited to - the following topics..." or just expand the level of topics. Test writers want to write challenging - and different tests - but when you are "mandated" to cover a list of topics, instead of having the option to focus more on one and leave others out, it would make the process much easier, and I believe challenging.Huh, are rules writers trying to make test writing focus on only simpler topics? I haven't been writing / checking enough events recently...but that would be unfortunate vs. the usual "simple but open" philosophy that I knew rules writers to have (like simple rules but very wide reach of topics they cover). Like, I thought everyone just knew that good rules enable both easy and hard tests >.>. The only issue is adding rules with "buts" can be bad...so idk, depends on the event.As a possible solution, I offer this - If those who write the rules would expand the topics to make the materials more challenging. Maybe "balancing simple equations" could be come just, "balancing equations", or in the chemistry events, why not specify we can include that stoichiometry (nothing more than learning conversion units) or molarity (concentration of a solution)be permitted or make the periodic table a better part of the rules? If there was more to work with, test writers would be better able to modify and alter questions from one test to the other and it would be more challenging. Unfortunately, I do see a trend to making the test writing "parameters" simpler, and so it makes tests more simpler and more similar. Test writers are the glue of the events. Give them more to work with and you would have better - and more diverse - tests.