There exist several methods of capturing expert judgement which have been used, or could potentially be used, in the process of determining grade boundaries for examinations. In a recent study, we sought to explore the judgements entailed in three such methods: (i) rank ordering, (ii) traditional awarding, and (iii) Thurstone pairs. A key aim was to identify the features of candidates' scripts that affect the judgements made in each of the three methods. To achieve this, sixty experienced examiners participated in the study. Each made judgements about overall script quality, using each method on a different batch of scripts. Additionally, each examiner completed a research task in which he or she was asked to rate a fourth batch of scripts for a series of features, using rating scales devised by the researchers. Subsequent data analysis entailed relating the judgemental data on script quality to the script feature data. Immediately after taking part in the study, one examiner recorded and offered the Research Division his views and experiences of participation. His perspective is the focus of this article.