because she was capable of doing A levels that she couldn’t possibly have all the issues she spoke about
There were pages of this type of thing with DD's F2F a few years ago and they all followed a particular pattern.
I believe they are erroneous assumptions, where the assessor notes a single fact like 'attended Mainstream school without extra support' and from that the assessor then extrapolates a series of tasks and actions they are adamant that the person is perfectly capable of doing because of the single fact they have stated. Then the DWP treat the Assessor's Report like The Word Of God and refuse to see reason.
I'd never expected to read anything like that and was horrified at those sorts of tactics, but I went through every word of the assessor's report and I unpicked every one of those erroneous assumptions and explained why they were wrong, backed up with as much evidence as I could find.
Another subject on the 'erroneous assumptions' list I heard of was being asked if you had a dog. All the claimant needed to say was Yes, that's it, just one word and from that all of this and more would be assumed and written into the Assessor's report.
Claimant has a dog.
Therefore because looking after a dog involves walking it at least twice daily, Claimant cannot have any difficulty with walking at all, also no difficulty clipping lead to collar and holding lead to control dog, so no hand, wrist, arm or shoulder mobility issues.
Claimant can bend down to stroke the dog and groom the dog therefore claimant has no issues with a bad back, neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand issues, or motor skills and grip needed for using grooming brushes etc.
Claimant can feed the dog therefore has no issues with remembering to do things at set times without prompting.
Claimant can take the dog to the vet so claimant has no issues with organisational skills needed to book and turn up at appointment, dispense any medication given and complete payment. Claimant can make and complete the journey to and from the vet.
Claimant can easily get in and out of a chair when they let the dog in and out of the garden, once more no hip, arm or leg use impairment. Hand mobility is not impaired as this action involves unlocking a door, using the handle to open and close the door and locking it again.
I'm sure there are more assumptions that can be made from tasks dog-owners undertake, but the example above is just to give anyone who has not seen this type of "reasoning" before a good idea of what to expect.
At no point would the assessor ASK if anyone else in the household walked or groomed the dog or took it to the vet, it was only ever assumed that the claimant did all of those tasks.
Be ready to expect these erroneous assumptions and be ready to challenge them with as much evidence as you can find.