This is one of those cases where perfectly logical arguments can be given for two diametrically opposite answers.
It is a JAR ATPL Performance question and different schools teach different inerpretations. So if every student remembers axactly what they have been taught, some will get the mark in the examination and some will not.
The real problem is that the CAA do not do any meaningful analysis of exam results. Worse still, they hold copies of the notes used by each of the schools, but spend little or no time examining and comparing them. If they did any meaningful analysis, they could identify the areas in which each school was doing badly and get them to sort out their problems.
After each examination most schools lodge a number of appeals. In a few cases these are successful. But the CAA are very secretive and do not discuss questions openly. The most common response to appeals is "inaccurate feedback". They rarely give any further explanation for the rejection of an appeal.
In the case of the pitch atitude in a constant mach descent question, I always advise my students to pick the "increase" option and to lodge an appeal based on the fact that different schools and different text books give different definitions. Sadly the CAA response appears to be to view these appeals as "Oh no not that old chestnut again....will these students never learn?"
Problem, What problem?????