EPSOHQ
← COM/AD/111/2026 training hub
4 written · 4 oral · AD6

AD6 written and oral scenario pack

Eight realistic assignments. Each scenario defines the decision context, required product and evidence-based self-review.

Clock: Written assignment: 90 minutes. Oral stage: maximum 60 minutes. Follow the test invitation for delivery details. These independent scenarios do not reproduce confidential Commission test material.
Written assignments

Analyse, decide, write

01Written assignments

Cross-service policy briefing

Brief

Two Commission services disagree on the policy option for a new initiative. Consultation evidence is mixed and the College needs a concise choice.

Deliverable

Prepare a briefing that states the problem, evidence, legal and operational constraints, options, recommendation and unresolved risks.

Self-review
  • Separate verified evidence from assumptions.
  • Explain each service’s concern fairly.
  • Give a decision and implementation path.
02Written assignments

Implementation letter

Brief

A Member State authority asks for guidance on implementing a new EU measure; several obligations are still subject to national discretion.

Deliverable

Draft a clear letter distinguishing binding EU requirements, national choices and next steps.

Self-review
  • Do not invent Commission powers.
  • Distinguish adopted rules from proposals.
  • Use precise but accessible language.
03Written assignments

Programme control note

Brief

A Commission programme is behind schedule, with inconsistent monitoring data and a risk to one funding milestone.

Deliverable

Write a note for the director that identifies the evidence gap, immediate controls, recovery options and escalation trigger.

Self-review
  • Quantify what the dossier supports.
  • Name owners and deadlines.
  • Do not hide residual risk.
04Written assignments

Stakeholder synthesis

Brief

Industry, civil society and Member States disagree on a planned measure, and several submissions cite the same unverified study.

Deliverable

Prepare a synthesis and recommendation that weighs evidence quality and explains the trade-offs.

Self-review
  • Avoid counting submissions as proof.
  • Represent minority views accurately.
  • Link the recommendation to the Commission mandate.
Oral-board scenarios

Structure, present, defend

01Oral-board scenarios

EU policy presentation

Brief

Explain a Commission policy priority, the institution’s role and the steps from political direction to a legally adopted measure.

Self-review
  • Separate priority, proposal and law.
  • Identify the relevant decision makers.
  • Answer follow-up questions directly.
02Oral-board scenarios

Intrapreneurship

Brief

A cross-DG process repeats the same error every quarter. You can propose a change but do not manage either team.

Self-review
  • Define the problem with evidence.
  • Pilot a proportionate improvement.
  • Build agreement and measure results.
03Oral-board scenarios

Learning and self-management

Brief

A fast-moving file exposes a gap in your knowledge while you have several deadlines.

Self-review
  • Prioritise immediate risk.
  • Seek the right expertise.
  • Show how learning changes delivery.
04Oral-board scenarios

Working together

Brief

Two colleagues challenge each other’s figures during a stakeholder meeting.

Self-review
  • Correct the record without blame.
  • Reconcile sources and ownership.
  • Restore a clear shared message.

Paid-user scenario request

Need another policy area, competency or document format? Paid users can request new scenarios with one message.

Request scenario