Summary

  • The six weighted domains in certi::6’s public Gold exam blueprint add up to 90%. The nine in Silver’s outline add up to 100%, leaving ten percentage points without a public Gold label.
  • This is a finding about a preparation document, not a live examination. It does not establish six missing questions, invalid scoring or deficient certification holders.

A candidate following the Gold exam blueprint can give transition techniques the largest share of revision time. The trouble arrives at the end of the budget. After allocating time to every weighted heading on the page, part of the advertised map remains unlabelled.

AFRINIC’s current homepage still directs readers to certi::6 among its capacity-building services. This review concerns the official pages captured on 14 September 2026. It is not an announcement that the examination changed that day, nor a report from inside its question bank.

The public allocation stops at ninety

The Gold page calls the section an Exam Blueprint and presents it as a detailed breakdown of what to expect. The complete section before the next page component contains six weighted headings:

Published domain Published weight
Subnetting and Address Planning 10%
Configuration Provisioning 10%
IPv6 Routing & Forwarding 15%
Transition Techniques 35%
Miscellaneous 5%
IPv6 Security 15%

Those numbers total 90%, not 100%. Relative to a complete allocation, ten percentage points have no named place in the published outline. “Unassigned” describes that public mapping. It does not describe ten per cent of an actual examination as absent or untested.

The Silver outline provides a useful, limited comparison. Its nine weights are 5, 5, 15, 5, 20, 10, 20, 10 and 10 per cent, totalling 100%. They cover basics, address types, subnetting, comparison with IPv4, neighbour discovery, basic configuration, provisioning, basic routing and transition techniques. Silver’s complete sum does not prove that it is more demanding than Gold. Different tiers need not cover identical material. It shows that a sibling public outline supplies a closed allocation.

Several explanations could fit the Gold page: an omitted domain, a wrongly printed weight, or an outline intended to be partial. None was established in the captured evidence. Nor should an editor quietly divide all six weights by ninety to make them sum to one hundred. That would change the published preparation priorities while concealing the question the page leaves open.

Three numbers, three different claims

The programme homepage distinguishes foundational Silver from advanced Gold. Gold’s largest published domain is transition techniques at 35%, with objectives that include recognising mechanisms and examining packet captures. A trainer can use that information to prioritise a course. The trainer cannot decide on the programme’s behalf what occupies the remaining ten percentage points.

The FAQ describes sixty multiple-choice questions in ninety minutes, taken online with proctoring. It gives a 75% Silver pass mark and an 80% Gold pass mark; both certifications are valid for two years. The individual tier pages also publish their respective passing scores. These are advertised examination terms, not parameters verified by taking an examination.

An 80% pass mark concerns success under a scoring rule. A public allocation totalling 90% concerns how a document distributes its advertised domains. The two percentages are not competing measures of the same thing.

The sixty-question format does not bridge them. Multiplying sixty by the unassigned ten per cent produces six arithmetically, but not six demonstrably missing questions. That conclusion would require a stated connection between domain weights, question counts and scoring units, together with the way a particular exam form uses the blueprint. The evidence does not establish equal item weights, fixed integer quotas or the current form specification.

There is a second boundary. A written examination can test valuable judgments about configuration, routing and security. Its public outline is not a measurement of one engineer deploying IPv6 in one operating network. Neither the format nor the incomplete public sum licenses a finding that certification holders lack practical competence.

A planning gap, not an examination verdict

The blueprint is a reliance surface. Candidates allocate revision time; course leads allocate teaching effort; employers decide how a credential relates to a job. The six named domains remain useful. Transition techniques do not become irrelevant because the headings total ninety.

What becomes harder is explaining that the public document provides a complete preparation map. A reader can follow every printed priority and still cannot name the remainder. The programme’s internal assessment may account for it perfectly. That possibility does not supply the missing public explanation.

Closing the explanation need not expose private questions. A missing domain could be added, a printed percentage corrected with a date, or a deliberately partial outline labelled as such. These are editorially proposed options, not actions observed or an examination standard imposed by this article.

No exam was booked, purchased or taken for the review. No candidate was contacted and no certification inquiry was emailed. The work measures neither pass rates nor learning outcomes, wasted fees or network incidents. Its defensible finding is narrower: the captured public Gold outline does not name the whole of a hundred-per-cent allocation.