I think the OP has gone above and beyond with his/her claim and that legal action is going to cost. He/she seems to be doing the level best to travel the self defamation route...
BUT - why did the examiner allow the whole test to be completed, when at the first available moment in section II the opportunity was available to mitigate to partial was missed? I think this is where the CAA said fair do's.
There is, however, a worrying trend of '...examiner is always right, pipsqueak' coming out in this thread. If the examiner isn't man/woman enough to accept criticism (and then, hopefully, shoot it down in flames with their superior knowledge), should they be examiners? We haven't knowingly heard from the examiner in this case - it might be so!