You want me to pay again when your system went down and your and process failed me. I am writing to formally appeal the response received regarding my complaint about the technical issues I experienced during my Insurance Agent License exam on July 11, 2025 at Pearson VUE’s testing center. Your response letter stated that “after careful review, no technical errors or loss of time were found,” that “all items presented were viewed, and all responses successfully recorded,” and that the exam “timed out as the full allotted time had been used,” confirming this “twice” with 17:51 minutes remaining. I must firmly dispute these findings, as they are factually incorrect and do not reflect what occurred. 1. System Failure Did Occur On 07/11/2025, my assigned workstation experienced a critical failure mid-exam. The screen went black, followed by an “unidentified error” message. The on-site proctor witnessed the issue and instructed me to attempt to reactivate the screen. When unsuccessful, she personally attempted troubleshooting, which also failed. I was then moved to another testing station to complete the exam. 2. Evidence Available Was Not Reviewed Your review states that no technical errors were found, yet Pearson VUE’s own process includes monitoring candidates via closed-captioned video. If this footage had been reviewed, it would have clearly shown: The workstation failure. The proctor’s troubleshooting attempts. My relocation to another workstation. In addition, if the computer’s log files had been examined, they would have reflected the system activity from the time I logged in to when the station went down. These logs are objective evidence of the malfunction and should have been part of the investigation. 3. Incomplete and Inaccurate Investigation It is evident that neither the workstation logs nor the proctor interviews were included in the review process. This omission results in an inaccurate and incomplete investigation and, consequently, false findings. 4. Discrimination Concern On 08/06/2025, when I followed up on my second appeal (Case #13291000), I was told again that no errors were found and that Pearson VUE would not take responsibility for the system failure. I was advised to contact the State for a possible score adjustment or pay another fee to retake the exam. I expressed my concern to the manager that this handling appears discriminatory, as there is no reasonable way that a thorough and unbiased investigation—supported by available system logs, CCTV footage, and proctor testimony—would conclude that “nothing was found.” 5. Requested Action I am requesting the following: A full re-investigation of my testing session, including review of CCTV footage, system log files, and proctor interviews from July 11, 2025. Consideration for an adjustment of my score or issuance of my Insurance Agent License without the need to retake the exam, given the system failure and its direct impact on my performance. A written explanation of why the original review did not include these verifiable sources of evidence. This matter is of high importance to me, as I have already invested significant time, money, and effort into preparing for and completing this exam. Retaking the test is not a reasonable or fair remedy when the fault lies with Pearson VUE’s systems and processes. I look forward to a prompt response and a fair resolution. Please confirm receipt of this appeal and advise when I can expect a decision. Respectfully, Kimberlyn Tucker Phone: 770-733-8984 Email: [Your Email Address] Exam Date: July 11, 2025 Testing Center Location: [Location] Exam: [Exam Name] Candidate ID: [If applicable]