This research draws on evidence from three qualifications taken in autumn 2020, when comparative judgement (CJ) was used as a key source of data in setting grade boundaries. In these cases, a separate CJ exercise was completed for each individual paper in the qualification so that standards could be maintained from a previous series. In this article, we explore what would have happened had we relied on a single CJ exercise on one paper to maintain standards in the whole qualification. We first examine whether evidence from different papers provides a consistent picture of changes in cohort ability between series. We then explore the impact of relying on evidence from one paper only on the precision with which we can identify appropriate qualification-level grade boundaries using CJ.