The final gate before the reserve list
The written test is EPSO's newest assessment format, introduced in February 2024 to replace the legacy Case Study. It is the last scored component before reserve list placement — and for AD5, it carries approximately 15% of your final ranking. Only candidates who pass the computer-based reasoning tests advance to this stage.
There are three variants depending on your competition profile:
| Test | Full Name | Duration | Assesses | Typical For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUFTE | Free-Text Essay on EU Matters | 40 min | Written communication only | AD5 generalists |
| WT | Written Test (Field-Related) | 90 min | Written communication only | AST, some specialists |
| FRWT | Field-Related Written Test | 90 min | Communication + field knowledge | AD7 specialists, auditors, IT |
All three are taken in Language 2 (your working language — typically English, French, or German). The pass mark is 5/10. This is not a language test — assessors do not penalise grammar mistakes, accents, or spelling. They evaluate whether you can communicate professional ideas clearly, concisely, and in a structured way.
How the EUFTE works (AD5 format)
Before the exam: the background document
EPSO releases a background document (approximately 20 pages) between 7 and 14 days before the exam. This document is a curated compilation of EU-related materials: press releases, policy summaries, meeting notes, institutional communications, and statistical data. It covers a specific EU policy area or current issue.
The same document is available during the exam. Everything you need to answer the assignment is contained within it — you are not expected to bring external knowledge, although familiarity with EU affairs helps you process the document faster.
On exam day: 40 minutes
You receive a specific assignment linked to the background document. The assignment specifies:
- The format you must produce (briefing note, policy memo, press release, analytical summary)
- The audience (Commissioner, Director-General, press, colleague)
- The purpose (summarise key points, recommend action, analyse implications)
- Any constraints (tone, specific aspects to cover)
You type your response directly into an on-screen text editor. Target length: 500-700 words (approximately 1-1.5 pages). Quality matters far more than quantity — a tight 500-word response scores higher than a rambling 800-word one.
How the FRWT differs
The FRWT gives you 90 minutes and assesses not just communication but also field-specific knowledge. The background documents are technical and domain-specific (financial auditing, IT procurement, engineering standards). You are expected to demonstrate expertise in the field, not just writing skill.
The FRWT evaluates four competencies instead of one: written communication, delivering quality and results, prioritising and organising, and analysis and problem-solving.
The five assessment anchors
Assessors evaluate your response against five specific anchors (performance descriptors). Understanding these is the single most important preparation step — because they define exactly what "good" looks like.
Anchor 1: Logical structure
What assessors look for: Ideas progress logically from introduction to conclusion. Clear cause-and-effect relationships. Coherent organisation with a visible beginning, middle, and end.
How to demonstrate it: Use a clear structure — opening paragraph (context + purpose), 2-3 developed body paragraphs (one point each), closing paragraph (summary + recommendation). Each paragraph starts with a topic sentence.
Anchor 2: Conciseness
What assessors look for: No verbosity, no repetition, no filler. Every sentence adds value. Efficient use of space.
How to demonstrate it: After writing, review each sentence and ask: "Does this add information the reader does not already have?" If not, delete it. Avoid phrases like "It is important to note that..." or "As mentioned above..." — these waste words.
Anchor 3: Clarity
What assessors look for: Complex ideas simplified without losing meaning. Accessible professional language. Clear definitions where needed.
How to demonstrate it: Average sentence length of 15-20 words. Avoid subordinate clause chains. If a concept is technical, explain it in one simple sentence before using it.
Anchor 4: Audience awareness
What assessors look for: Appropriate tone for the specified format. Right level of detail for the intended reader. Matches the assignment brief exactly.
How to demonstrate it: A briefing note to a Commissioner is formal, focused, and action-oriented. A press release is accessible and newsworthy. An internal memo to a colleague can be more direct. Read the assignment prompt twice — the audience specification is not optional guidance; it is a scoring criterion.
Anchor 5: Evidence use
What assessors look for: Relies on provided materials. Integrates evidence effectively. Does not invent unsupported claims.
How to demonstrate it: Reference specific facts, figures, or statements from the background document. "According to the Commission's 2025 assessment..." or "The data shows a 23% increase..." Avoid generic claims that could apply to any topic.
The 40-minute execution plan
| Phase | Time | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Read the assignment | 3 min | Read the prompt twice. Highlight: format, audience, purpose, constraints. |
| 2. Scan the document | 7 min | Locate relevant sections. Note 4-5 key facts, figures, or quotes to reference. |
| 3. Plan | 5 min | Write a 3-point outline. For each point, note 1-2 supporting facts. |
| 4. Write | 20 min | Follow your outline. One paragraph per point. Reference document evidence. |
| 5. Review | 5 min | Check: Did you answer the prompt? Remove redundancy. Fix obvious errors. |
Critical warning: If you run out of time, your response is cut off mid-sentence. An incomplete but well-structured response scores better than a complete but disorganised one — but an abruptly cut response loses anchor points for structure. Budget your time strictly.
The briefing note template
The most common EUFTE format. Here is the structure that aligns with all five anchors:
Heading: BRIEFING NOTE — [Subject]
To: [Audience as specified in the prompt]
From: [Your role as specified or implied]
Date: [Exam date]
1. Context (2-3 sentences)
What is the situation? Why does this matter now? Reference the background document to establish the issue.
2. Key findings (2-3 paragraphs, each 3-5 sentences)
The core of your response. Each paragraph addresses one main point with evidence from the document. Use specific data points, institutional references, or policy details to support each point.
3. Recommendation / Conclusion (2-3 sentences)
What action should the reader take? What is the main takeaway? Be decisive — assessors reward clear recommendations over hedged non-commitments.
This template naturally satisfies Anchor 1 (logical structure), Anchor 4 (audience awareness), and Anchor 5 (evidence use). Anchors 2 and 3 (conciseness and clarity) depend on your sentence-level writing quality.
Common formats and their characteristics
| Format | Tone | Key feature | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Briefing note | Formal, analytical | Structured with clear headings | Too much background, not enough analysis |
| Policy memo | Internal, direct | Action-oriented with recommendations | Too passive — "it could be considered" instead of "we recommend" |
| Press release | Public, accessible | Newsworthy lead, quotes, context | Too technical — forgetting the audience is the general public |
| Analytical essay | Academic, balanced | Arguments for and against with conclusion | Not taking a position — the assessor wants a conclusion |
What NOT to do
- Do not invent information. If the document does not contain a specific figure, do not make one up. Assessors know the document by heart.
- Do not copy entire passages. Assessors check for direct copy-paste. Paraphrase and reference.
- Do not write an academic essay when asked for a memo. Format compliance is Anchor 4 — ignoring it costs points directly.
- Do not use complex vocabulary to impress. Clarity beats sophistication. "The programme will be implemented in Q3" beats "The implementation trajectory of the aforementioned programme is projected for the third fiscal quarter."
- Do not skip the conclusion. An unfinished response loses structure points. If time is short, write a 1-sentence conclusion rather than none.
Weight in different competitions
| Competition | Test type | Duration | Weight | Pass mark |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD5 generalist | EUFTE | 40 min | ~15% of final score | 5/10 |
| AD7 auditors | FRWT | 90 min | Varies (check notice) | 5/10 |
| AD7 IT specialists | FRWT | 90 min | Varies | 5/10 |
| AST | WT | 90 min | Combined score | 5/10 |
Important: Weights change between competition cycles. Always consult the Notice of Competition (the official document published on eu-careers.europa.eu) for exact percentages.
Preparation timeline
Weeks before the document release
You do not know the topic yet, but you can prepare the skill:
- Read 2-3 Commission press releases per week in your Language 2 to build EU vocabulary
- Practice writing briefing notes on random EU topics (500 words, 25 minutes)
- Study the five anchors until you can evaluate your own writing against them
- Read one background document from a past competition (available on eu-careers.europa.eu sample tests page)
When the background document is released (7-14 days before)
Day 1-2: Familiarisation. Read the entire document twice. First read for structure and flow. Second read for key facts, figures, and arguments. Create a 1-page summary with the main themes and evidence points.
Day 3-5: Analysis. Map the document's information architecture: What are the main sections? What evidence supports which arguments? What are the competing viewpoints? Identify 8-10 facts you could reference in any assignment.
Day 6-8: Practice. Write 2-3 practice responses to hypothetical prompts based on the document. Time yourself (40 minutes). Review against the five anchors.
Day 9-14: Refinement. Revise your practice responses. Identify patterns in your writing: Are you too verbose? Do you forget conclusions? Do you reference enough evidence? Address your specific weaknesses.
Exam day
You have already read the document multiple times. You know where the key evidence is. Your 40 minutes should be spent almost entirely on writing — not on document discovery. The preparation phase is where the exam is won or lost.
The scoring reality
EPSO does not publish detailed rubrics showing what constitutes a 6/10 versus a 7/10. Based on the anchors and preparation guidance:
- 3-4/10: Response exists but lacks structure, misses the brief, or contains mostly unsupported claims
- 5-6/10: Adequate structure, addresses the brief, some evidence use, but verbose or lacking in analytical depth
- 7-8/10: Clear structure, concise writing, strong evidence use, appropriate tone, actionable conclusion
- 9-10/10: Exceptional clarity, perfect brief alignment, sophisticated evidence integration, compelling recommendations
Most competitive candidates score in the 6-8 range. The difference between making the reserve list and missing it is often 1-2 points — which is why the five anchors matter so much.
Want structured preparation?
Our training programs cover exactly the skills and techniques described in this article.
Start your preparation