The Secondary Exam for Reiwa 8 (2026), held in October 2026. This series uses the actual question papers for Cases I–IV as primary sources to structurally analyze "what is written in the case text — and what is not." If you sat the exam this year, use it as a review. If you're sitting it next year, use it as a model for how to read.
Introduction: Where This Series Stands
The Secondary Exam publishes no official model answers and no scoring criteria. That means any statement about "the examiner's intent" or "what earns points" — from any prep school or analyst — is inference, full stop.
Throughout this series, I flag the confidence level of each claim using three labels.
| Label | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| [Confirmed] | Facts explicitly stated in the question paper | Point allocations, word counts, limiting words in question stems, case-text statements |
| [Inference] | Logically derivable from the correspondence between case text and questions, but not officially verified | Mapping like "this sentence was placed here for this question" |
| [Speculation] | Plausible, but no way to verify | Next year's exam trends, how scorers weight different elements |
The sample answers covered in the latter half of this series are AI-generated reference answers — they are audit targets, not "correct answers." I'll read them by separating what is grounded in the case text from what is not.
About the sample answers in this series The sample answers audited in Parts 2 and 3 are the AI-generated answers (framework-sorting examples + question-by-question answer examples) bundled with "Jirei Drill" (Case Drill), an iPad Secondary Exam prep app I'm developing. The app displays them side-by-side with the case text so you can compare them against your own notes and answers. Full details in Part 4. → View on the App Store
Series Structure
- Part 1 (this article): The overall structure of all four cases and "the silences in the case text"
- Part 2: Cases I & II — limiting words in each question and the traps they set
- Part 3: Cases III & IV — systematizing operations in a printing company, and investment/exit calculations for an e-commerce firm (with verification)
- Part 4: Strategic advice for next year's candidates — how to allocate 80 minutes, how to practice, and an introduction to "Jirei Drill," the app with bundled sample answers
1. All Four Cases at a Glance
Let's start with the big picture. Cases I–III span different industries and company sizes, yet they share the same underlying skeleton. Case IV alone plays a different role.
| Dimension | Case I: Company A Group | Case II: Company B | Case III: Company C | Case IV: Company D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry / Scale | Regional specialty wholesale; 62 employees (post-acquisition) | Citrus sales & planning; 2 employees | Printing; 30 employees | General e-commerce; ~¥5.8B revenue; ~100 employees |
| Central Theme | Post-acquisition organizational integration and growth strategy | Redesigning the production area and building a "related population" (kankei jinko) | Recovering profitability with existing resources | Selecting which diversified businesses to keep or cut |
| Succession / Aging Pressure | Company X's president in his 70s, no successor, skills not being passed on | Aging farmers, veteran growers leaving the industry | Aging veteran workers | None (replaced by aging fixtures from a taken-over store and outdated equipment) |
| Missing Resource & How It's Filled | Manufacturing capability → acquire Company X | Farmland & processing equipment → purchasing and outsourcing | Investment capacity → expand revenue using existing equipment and staff | Out-of-region foothold → considering acquiring Company Y |
| Points (word count) | 20/30/20/30 (520 characters total) | 20/25/25/30 (650 characters total) | 10/15/25/25/25 (480 characters total) | 25/20/30/25 (written responses: 80 characters × 3) |
Point allocations and word counts are [Confirmed]. The time-management implications are clear:
- Case II has the highest total word count (650 characters), with 30 points riding on Question 4 alone.
- Case III has a light Question 1 (40 characters, 10 points), with 75 points concentrated in Questions 3–5.
- Case IV awards 30 points to Question 3 (NPV) alone. Written responses are only 80 characters × 3, meaning calculation accuracy is almost everything.
2. The Shared Skeleton of Cases I–III: "Make Do with What You Have"
Lay the three cases side by side and the same destination emerges: "overcome the pressure of aging and succession through systematization of person-dependent work and integration of external resources" [Inference].
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Destination: overcome succession pressure via │
│ "systematization × external resources" │
├──────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────────────┤
│ Case I │ Case II │ Case III │
│ Acquire Company X│ Purchasing & │ Recover profitability │
│ to add │ outsourcing fill │ using existing │
│ manufacturing │ the gap left by │ equipment and staff │
│ capability │ no farmland or │ │
│ │ equipment │ │
├──────────────────┴──────────────────┴────────────────────────┤
│ Shared constraint: new investment, new hiring, and │
│ price increases are all blocked on the case-text side │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
This "foundation" matters. Case III explicitly states "expand revenue within existing equipment and staff," but Cases I and II do the same thing implicitly — Case I mentions "the burden of equipment upgrades" and "rapid expansion would destabilize both factory operations and employment," while Case II notes "no farmland or processing equipment" and "2 employees." In all three cases, the case text itself closes off the path of solving problems through investment or hiring.
So where does the blocked question of "investment and exit decisions" go? Case IV. Whether to renovate (Question 2), exit (Question 3), or acquire (Question 4) — all of it lands in Case IV as calculation problems. Viewed across all four cases, the division of labor is elegantly consistent [Inference].
3. A Character's Background Is Never Decoration
One of the most effective reading moves in Reiwa 8 is drawing a line between a character's background and the question that uses it.
| Character | Background (stated in case text) | Question where it's used |
|---|---|---|
| Case I: Eldest daughter | Worked at a packaging company in a major city → returned home (U-turn), now leads planning and e-commerce | Q4: Combined with the case text's mention that consumers evaluate "packaging, story, and usage suggestions," this grounds the argument for higher value-added products |
| Case II: President | Worked in customer service and event planning at a theme park | Q4: Designing the community engagement program |
| Case II: Junior colleague | Chef at a French restaurant in a major city | Q3: Evaluator of the powdered product (though not the target customer) |
| Case III: Veteran in the Production/Prepress Division | Central figure in the all-inclusive contract work | Q5: The core of a reproducible operational structure |
Any character whose background is described is placed there with the assumption that they'll be used in at least one question. Skim past them and you lose one piece of evidence.
4. Reading the "Silences" in the Case Text
In the Secondary Exam, what is not written in the case text defines the scope of your answer just as much as what is. Break the silences into three types and the zones candidates must not enter become visible.
| Type | Meaning | What candidates should do |
|---|---|---|
| Natural omission | Assumed as general knowledge, or irrelevant to the questions | Write it as a given / leave it out |
| Subject-division omission | Handled by another case (mainly Case IV) | Don't touch it in this case |
| "Can't-say" silence | Things the case text can't include by the nature of the exam — e.g., criticizing management | Rephrase as "absence of a system/process" |
Key Silences in Reiwa 8
| Silence | Case | Type | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition price, Company X's financials | I | Subject-division omission | Writing financial advice in Case I has no basis for earning points |
| The workload of the eldest daughter holding dual roles (Managing Director of A and President of X) | I | "Can't-say" silence | "Risk of power concentration" is outside the scope of Q2 |
| All revenue, profit, and pricing figures | II | Subject-division omission | No room to write about pricing strategy |
| Friction between expanding direct sales and the shipping cooperative | II | "Can't-say" silence | Don't touch the conflict-of-interest angle |
| Utilization rate and payback period of the digital press | III | Subject-division omission | Answer "effective utilization" by addressing what jobs to run through it |
| The fact that the managing director approves estimates yet pricing is person-dependent | III | "Can't-say" silence | Don't criticize the managing director — write about the "absence of standards" that precedes the approval step |
| The monetary value of "reduced labor costs" from renovation | IV | Question mentions the expectation but gives no figure | Don't include it in the calculation |
| Company Y's financials and synergies | IV | Natural omission | Focus on Company D's own safety and liquidity |
"Can't-say" silences arise from the institutional nature of the SME Diagnostician exam. The business owner in the case text is always portrayed as "highly trusted," "a respected local figure," "someone who explained things sincerely" — past misjudgments are never written in. Even if such things would be fair game in a real diagnostic engagement, the safe move in an exam answer is to rephrase them as the "absence of a system or process" that the case text has set up for you.
One Limiting Word Cuts the Answer Pool in Half
A quick counterfactual: if Case III Question 1 had asked for "Company C's strengths" without the limiting phrase "in terms of production," then high market share with government agencies, a track record with art museums and museums, and customer trust would all fall within the valid answer range.
One limiting word cuts the answer pool in half. Think of the limiting words in a question stem as the blade the examiner uses to slice off the parts of the case text they don't want you to use.
Summary
- Cases I–III share the same skeleton: "overcome succession pressure through systematization and external resources" [Inference]
- New investment, hiring, and price increases are blocked by the case text in all three cases; investment decisions are consolidated into Case IV [Inference]
- Any character whose background is described will be used in at least one question
- Case-text silences come in three types; rephrase "can't-say" silences as the absence of a system or process
Next time, I'll break down Cases I and II question by question, mapping out the limiting words, where the evidence lives, and the traps waiting for the unwary.
This series uses the Reiwa 8 Secondary Exam question papers (Cases I–IV) as its primary sources. No external prep-school analyses or official announcements have been referenced.