Point 72 Spring Week London Process?

I applied around two months ago and then received the case study (500-word write-up + income statement projections) on 20 November (submitted mid nov), with the deadline for all submissions being 30 November.

I’ve seen a few people (all Warwick Econ kids weirdly enough) on group chats mention that they were asked to complete a criteria test/next stage which i assume to be the test but only a very small number of applicants and only after the mass case-study deadline. I personally haven’t been asked to do this, so I’m not sure if that’s normal or if I’m cooked.

Does anyone with experience of the Academy process (or prior cycles) know if the criteria test is standard, or how selective it is at this stage? Any insight on timelines or expectations would be massively appreciated.

Any comments are greatly appreciated 

For context for the 500 word write up i did this: 

For the 500-word write-up, I structured it like a short-form buy-side pitch. I opened with a clear thesis explaining why the business has durable competitive advantages and why its long-term potential may be underappreciated.

I focused on the company’s core moats — including strong brand positioning, pricing power, and a scalable distribution model — and linked each of these to the fundamentals in my model (growth, margins, and operating leverage). I also highlighted how the company’s cost structure supports margin expansion as it scales.

Because of the word limit, I prioritised only the drivers that truly matter: top-line momentum, the stability of demand, the sustainability of its moat, and how these translate into financial performance.

I closed with a concise but specific risks section that covered competitive threats, execution risks, and any structural dependencies. The aim was to show clear investment judgment within a tight word count without relying on unnecessary technical detail.

And for the model i did this: 

For the modelling component, I built a clean, fully dynamic three-year income statement driven by realistic, bottom-up assumptions. I structured revenue using driver-based logic grounded in the company’s actual disclosures, avoiding any speculative inputs the firm does not report.

I faded growth appropriately over the forecast horizon, kept the operating cost assumptions consistent with historical trends, and normalised the tax rate. All key assumptions were adjustable and flowed automatically through to EBIT and net income without breaking the model.
 

My goal was not to over-engineer the model, but to demonstrate good forecasting judgment, proper linkage, and an understanding of how the company’s moat and scale advantages translate into financial outcomes.