1. Question Set 3 Rejects Consumer Expenditure as a Possible Top-Down Input
Curriculum location: Industry Survey, Question Set 3, Question 1, p. 360.
"C. Estimated consumer expenditure on specific goods or services over a specific period may be used in a top-down approach to estimating industry size."
"C is incorrect because the basis for measuring industry size is total revenue, not customer spending."
The curriculum earlier explains that top-down industry sizing may use government retail-sales data. Option C says consumer expenditure may be used; it does not claim that unadjusted spending always equals industry revenue. Appropriately scoped expenditure is a valid demand-side input, although analysts may need to adjust for industry boundaries, imports, taxes, distribution margins, or business purchases. BEA input-output accounts explicitly bridge personal-consumption categories to commodity composition and distinguish purchasers' prices from producers' prices. The intended option B also allows government, consultant, or industry data as top-down inputs. Because both B and C are defensible, the printed rationale does not leave a unique answer.
Correct reading: Total industry revenue is the target measure. Appropriately scoped consumer-expenditure data may be used as a top-down input, but it must be reconciled to the industry's product, customer, geographic, and price boundaries.
A candidate could reject a valid top-down method or lose credit for selecting a defensible option.
2. Example 20 Assigns Patent Grants to Medicines Regulators
Curriculum location: Porter's Five Forces and the PESTLE Framework, Example 20, p. 374.
"While the FDA and EMA approval processes differ, both are focused on the highest health and safety standards for new medications when granting intellectual property protection, such as patents."
This sentence conflates medicine regulation with patent administration. The FDA reviews and approves drugs; EMA conducts scientific evaluation in the European Union's centralised procedure, after which the European Commission makes the legally binding marketing-authorisation decision. Patent offices—not the FDA or EMA—grant patents.
Correct reading: Medicines regulators assess safety, efficacy, and quality under their regulatory frameworks. Patent offices separately grant patents.
A candidate who merges approval and patent protection can misclassify pharmaceutical entry barriers and their duration in a PESTLE or competitive analysis.
3. Question Set 4 Gives Licensing Requirements a Fixed Duration
Curriculum location: Porter's Five Forces and the PESTLE Framework, Question Set 4, Question 1, p. 376.
"1. Which of the following represents the prevention of the threat to industry entrants for an indefinite period?"
"C is correct because the existence of proprietary technology can prevent the threat of entry only as long as other potential market participants fail to replicate a company’s technology."
"B is incorrect because licensing requirements provide a competitive advantage for a specific period of time."
The solution confuses the duration of an individual credential with the duration of the licensing barrier. The curriculum's earlier entry-barriers discussion identifies restrictive licensing requirements as entry prevention and singles out patents—not licensing requirements—as temporary. A licensing regime may be fixed-term, renewable, or open-ended; proprietary technology likewise remains protective only while rivals cannot replicate or lawfully obtain it. The option gives no term or nonrenewal condition, so B cannot be excluded on duration alone.
Correct reading: Patent protection has a legally limited term. Licensing requirements may be fixed-term, renewable, or open-ended depending on the regime, while proprietary technology remains a barrier only while competitors cannot replicate or obtain it. As printed, the question has no unique answer.
A candidate can be marked wrong for a defensible B selection and learn a false universal rule about regulatory entry barriers.
Complete Module 9 Errata Index
Scope: Module 9, pp. 337–382 (printed page numbers).
What this review covers. Errors in the printed curriculum that would change a candidate's answer or understanding: wrong numbers, wrong formulas, reversed logic, and statements that contradict the module's own data. It does not list spelling mistakes, equation-numbering slips, or wording that is loose but defensible.
The table below lists all high-value, objectively confirmed curriculum errors covered by this article, including eligible errors in printed Practice Problems and their solutions. Repeated instances of the same defect are consolidated into one row. Import-only defects, question errors not printed in the module source, disputed or reasonably defensible claims, and low-value editorial corrections such as typos or numbering and cross-reference errors are outside scope.
References
- BEA Benchmark Input-Output Data
- BEA Guide to the Industry Input-Output Accounts
- Drugs@FDA: FDA-Approved Drugs
- EMA: Obtaining an EU Marketing Authorisation
- USPTO Patent Essentials
- WIPO Frequently Asked Questions: Patents
- U.S. eCFR: Duration of Air Carrier and Operating Certificates
- WIPO Frequently Asked Questions on Trade Secrets
This article is an independent candidate-focused analysis of confirmed errors in the CFA Level I 2027 Curriculum, Volume 5 Equity Investments, Module 9 Industry and Competitive Analysis. It is not an official CFA Institute errata notice, and inclusion here must not be read as CFA Institute confirmation, endorsement, or approval.