Top marks should be awarded to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) for bureaucratic balderdash.
Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, two St Hildas Collegiate School pupils are still recorded on official lists as having broken examination room rules.
They both also received "rude" letters after the investigation was completed.
Information released to the media by the NZQA detailed 330 "exam breaches" last year and included a case where the girls were alleged to have shared answers.
This was a breach listed as "resolved".
But, as the father of one of the girls said, the reporting should have made it clear the case had no basis.
The reason the girls had an almost identical answer was because their teacher had advised the class to memorise the response to a particular question. The matter was sorted quickly and the straightforward and logical explanation accepted once the school principal was involved.
She, too, was unimpressed by the NZQA terms which failed to distinguish between a breach and an alleged breach.
Asked whether the NZQA would change its reporting system next year, as is being requested by the St Hildas school principal, the organisation responded that its present terminology - "breach resolved" and "breach proven" distinguished between the result of a breach. But that misses the point.
The St Hildas case was not a "breach" in the first place, just suspicion about one.
There was no breach to resolve.
To make matters worse, the NZQA letter to the girls, even though they were completely cleared, said that it "regards all breaches of its examination very seriously" and reminded them to be careful in the future.
Considering the pupils had done nothing wrong, that is appalling.
It seems the inflexible NZQA bureaucracy has correspondence to send out when alleged breaches cannot be proven which indicates it still believes those involved might still be guilty.
How does that build trust and confidence in the examination system among pupils, parents and schools? At least the NZQA says it reviews its policies and procedures on breaches each year and that a review would occur in due course - in time for the next examination round.
Just imagine the NZQA as a business, which would make the pupils its customers.
Imagine treating them with such disdain.
The NZQA has breached appropriate standards.
It could do a whole lot better and, with its review, now has the chance to do so before its next big examination.
• Risks in the snow
The Queenstown snowboarder killed by an avalanche just outside the boundaries of the Coronet Peak skifield diced with death, and paid the price.
Given Ryan Campbell's experience, the warning signs at Coronet and the publicity and talk about high avalanche risks at the moment, he and others skiing and snowboarding in that area will have known that what they were doing was highly dangerous.
We feel sorrow at what has happened but cannot express great surprise.
His parents described Ryan as a thrill-seeker, not a risk-taker. There have always been such people, who can add verve and excitement to society and to the lives of those around them.
They live life to the full, the corollary being that they increase the chances of mishap.
As long as they do not unduly endanger others, the choice remains largely theirs, no matter how hard it is on those close to them when the worst happens.
In this instance, the hazards were mostly, although not entirely, to Mr Campbell and the others there.
It must be hoped, nevertheless, that those taking chances in extreme sports or in perilous places recognise potential risks to rescuers.
Mr Campbell's death and that of an Australian heliskiing tourist last month in the Ragged Range act as stark reminders to snowboarders and skiers who venture beyond skifield boundaries and into the back country.
They need to be knowledgeable, properly equipped - and also be prepared to exercise a fair degree of caution.
