The usual. Go for it.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I’ve gone quickly through the exam, without computing everything (or much of anything). I’ll make a few general comments and then pick on a few questions; mostly I’m just repeating commenters’ observations, but there are a couple things to say, or at least to say louder.
Obviously the exam was pretty fraction heavy, which is intrinsically ok. Except, the exam wasn’t also heavy in more Year 12-ish ways. There don’t appear to be any “errors” in the newspaper sense of the word, but there are definitely a few things there to irritate (at least) mathematicians.
Q2. It’s a good thing they emphasised to solve for . I was just about to solve for 4. (Alternative joke: I was just about to solve for x a quarternion.)
Q4. I used trapezia/rectangles of constant height 1, the first based on [1, 3/2] and the second based on [2, 5/2]. Tell me I’m wrong.
Q5. This question seems good in principle but poor in execution. As Bugle noted in a comment, part (b) can naturally be tackled with trig symmetries. However, the range of k to be considered seemed fiddly enough that it was probably simpler, or at least no harder, to solve the problem by autopilot computing. It’s not good to invite cleverness that turns out to not be beneficial.
Q7. (24/11/23) Someone emailed me about (d), and they’re right: the wording really, really sucks. It’s not an error, since the question specifies “regions” (plural), but it’s way too easy to overlook that, and to hunt for a single region bounded by the three functions.
Q9. Walking tracks. Those two stupid curves are walking tracks.
VCAA’s real-world flavour text is always silly and pointless, but Q9 is even sillier than usual. A track is a track: who cares whether, with some particular orientation, the thing has a “turning point”? Beyond that: the point P is undefined; the question should have referred to “stationary point” rather than “turning point”, unless they really mean the latter (in which case 2 marks is insufficient); the two stupid tracks have nothing and essentially nothing to do with the stupid park; the use of “verify” cannot mean much different in this question, but appears to have confused people.
In sum, there don’t appear to any hanging offences, but Q4 and Q9 are each worth a slap. All four of the above questions could have and would have been significantly improved by proper mathematiciany scrutiny.