Skip to main content

The PhD viva simulation built from your own research.

Your thesis is read before the session begins. The examiner presses every argument that doesn't hold.

getpanelready.co.uk / interview
Sessions
PhD Viva · Methodology
PhD Viva · Contribution
RICS APC · Full mock
Debrief
Session 1 · results
Session 2 · results
PhD Viva
Examination in progress
Q4 of 8  ·  24:11
EM
Dr. Edward Marsh
Simulated Internal Examiner
Examiner
Question
Your Chapter 3 presents six themes as if they emerged organically. How do you account for your own role in constructing them?
Your answer
"I tried to be reflexive throughout. I kept a research journal and noted my initial reactions to the data. I also discussed emerging themes with my supervisor at key points..."
Follow-up
Where does the journal appear in the thesis? I don't see it referenced in your methodology chapter.
Continue your response
↵ submit
DIMS · This answer
Specificity5/10
Journal cited but not evidenced in text.
Ownership7/10
Clarity6/10
Impact4/10
Significance of reflexivity not argued.
Session
Thesis
Identity Construction in Digital Communities
Phase
Methodology
Examination arc
Introduction
Literature positioning
Methodology
Findings
Contribution
Upload

Your thesis is the source. Everything follows from it.

Upload your thesis as a PDF. PanelReady reads every chapter, maps your argument structure, and identifies the passages an examiner is most likely to press on. Underdeveloped justifications. Unsupported claims. Gaps between your stated methodology and your actual practice.

Upload thesis
Drop your thesis PDF here
or click to browse · PDF, max 50MB
Identity_Construction_Digital_Communities_PhD.pdf
82,441 words · 7 chapters · 312 pages
Thesis extractionComplete
Chapters mapped
Ch.1 Introduction
✓
Ch.2 Literature
✓
Ch.3 Methodology
6 flags
Ch.4 Findings
3 flags
Ch.5 Discussion
2 flags
Flagged passage · Ch.3 p.47
"Thematic analysis was selected as the most appropriate method for this study given its flexibility and its ability to provide a rich account of data."
Justification is circular: flexibility is cited as the reason for the choice, not a property of the data that made the method appropriate. Likely to draw examiner challenge.
Examiner profile

The examiner is calibrated to your thesis before the session begins.

A simulated examiner profile is built from the extraction. The examiner knows your argument structure, has read your methodology, and has already identified the sections they intend to challenge. They arrive in the session the way a real examiner arrives: prepared.

EM
Dr. Edward Marsh
Simulated Internal Examiner
Examination style
Methodological. Probes for epistemological consistency. Does not accept “flexibility” as justification. Presses on the link between stance and method.
Priority focus areas
Ch.3 Epistemological positioning
Ch.3 Theme construction justification
Ch.5 Contribution claim precision
Ch.4 Findings to literature link
Pressure level
Calibrated · Medium-high
Question derivation map9 questions planned
Flagged passage · §3.4
"Thematic analysis was selected... given its flexibility..."
Weak justification
Derived question
You describe thematic analysis as flexible. Flexibility is not a justification. What specific features of your data made it the right choice?
Flagged passage · §3.2
"The researcher's positionality was acknowledged throughout..."
No explicit location
Derived question
Where in the thesis do you make your positionality explicit? I see it acknowledged once in passing but not developed as a methodological position.
Flagged passage · §5.1
"This study makes an original contribution to the field of..."
Contribution claim imprecise
Derived question
What would have been impossible to know before your study? State the contribution in one sentence without using the word "understanding".
The examination

Pressure that escalates. Space to think. Notes in real time.

The session runs as a real examination. The examiner does not prompt or guide. A weak answer triggers follow-up. A strong one advances the arc. Candidates can write notes mid-session without leaving the conversation. Every exchange is recorded and tagged for the debrief.

getpanelready.co.uk / interview
Q5 of 9  ·  31:04
Current session
PhD Viva · Methodology
Arc
Introduction
Literature
Methodology
Findings
Contribution
PhD Viva
Session in progress
EM
Dr. Edward Marsh
Simulated Internal Examiner
Examiner
Q5 · Epistemological positioning
Your methodology relies on thematic analysis, but you offer no account of epistemological positioning. Why not?
Answer
"I take an interpretivist stance. I was interested in how participants made sense of experience, not identifying patterns..."
Push-back · 1 of 2
Where do you make that explicit in the thesis? Point me to the section.
Response
"It's implicit in the framing of Chapter 3... I didn't dedicate a separate section to it but I felt it came through in the writing..."
Push-back · 2 of 2 · Escalated
Implicit is not the same as argued. An examiner cannot credit a stance that the candidate assumes the reader will infer. Where in the text do you actually defend this position?
Your response
↵ submit
DIMS · Q5 answer
Specificity3/10
No passage cited. "Implicit" rejected.
Ownership6/10
Clarity5/10
Impact2/10
No consequence stated.
Examiner pressure
Escalated · 2 follow-ups issued
This question tagged
EpistemologyMethodologyNeeds revision
Session scores so far
Specificity4.2/10
Ownership6.8/10
Session notes
Q3 · Methodology
State epistemological position explicitly when asked. Don't assume it's implied by method choice.
Q5 · Escalated
Prepare a one-sentence statement of epistemological stance. Cannot rely on it being inferred when pressed.
General
Prepare one-sentence contribution that doesn't use "understanding".
Add note...
Voice mode

Speak your answers. The viva is an oral examination.

A real viva is not a written exercise. Voice mode captures your spoken answer, transcribes it in real time, and scores it against the same DIMS dimensions. Hesitations, rephrasing, and incomplete sentences are part of the record. The debrief notes where your spoken answer diverged from the argument you intended to make.

Recording · 1:04
Voice mode · Q5 of 9
Examiner question
Your methodology relies on thematic analysis, but you offer no account of epistemological positioning in relation to your choice of method. Why?
Voice input
Tap to stop · answer will be scored on submission
Live transcript
"The choice of thematic analysis was driven by the nature of the research question. I was not looking to test a hypothesis... I was trying to understand how participants constructed meaning around their digital identities, and thematic analysis gave me the flexibility to follow where the data led rather than forcing it into predetermined categories. I suppose the epistemological stance would be interpretivist..."
Live DIMS preview
Specificity6/10
Ownership8/10
Clarity5/10
"I suppose" introduces hedging. Restate with confidence.
Impact4/10
The debrief

Every answer scored, cited, and tagged. Nothing summarised away.

The debrief is a written record of the session. Each answer carries a score across four dimensions, a note citing the specific passage from your thesis, and a tag identifying the type of gap. Patterns across questions are identified so you know where to direct revision before your next session.

Session debrief · PhD Viva · Methodology focus
Export PDFShare
Specificity
4.8
Weakest dimension this session
Ownership
7.1
Consistent across session
Clarity
6.3
Dropped under follow-up pressure
Impact
4.2
Rarely connected to field significance
Q3 · Reflexivity
Specificity 5Ownership 7
Reflexivity is asserted but never demonstrated. The research journal you mention does not appear in the submitted thesis. An examiner will treat any claim not evidenced in the text as unverifiable.
§ 3.4 Analytical approach · p.51
Q5 · Epistemology · Escalated
Specificity 3Impact 2
Epistemological stance was stated orally but is absent from the thesis. Two follow-ups were required. "I suppose" in the second response signals uncertainty that a real examiner would record.
§ 3.2 Epistemological framing · p.47
Session pattern
Ownership is strong when you are not under pressure. When follow-up is applied, Specificity drops to low scores because you restate the argument rather than citing evidence. This is the primary pattern to address in your next session.
Recommended next session
1.Focus on Ch.3. Practise citing passages by section number in every answer.
2.Practise articulating your epistemological stance in two sentences and be ready to point to where it is argued in the text.
3.Prepare one-sentence contribution statement without "understanding" or "insight".
Progress

Scores across sessions so you can see what is improving.

Every session contributes to a running record. DIMS scores are tracked across all sessions so trends become visible. You see which dimensions are improving, which are stalling, and whether pressure handling is developing between attempts.

View your progress record →
DIMS scores across sessions3 sessions completed
108642Session 1Session 2Session 3 (latest)SpecificityOwnershipClarityImpact
Improvement since first session
Specificity
3.2→5.9+2.7
Ownership
5.8→7.8+2.0
Clarity
4.9→7.2+2.3
Impact
3→5.4+2.4
Session log
Session 1 · Methodologyavg 4.0
Session 2 · Methodologyavg 5.6
Session 3 · Methodologyavg 6.6
Cohort distribution
You
24 candidates · anonymised
Cohort access
Departments and programmes can track candidates, set cohort benchmarks, and receive aggregate readiness reports.
Learn about organisations →

The way examiners actually conduct a viva is well documented. How they probe for ownership of knowledge. How they escalate pressure when an answer is incomplete. How the examination arc is structured. PanelReady is built on that literature, not around it.

Tinkler & Jackson, 2004
The Doctoral Examination Process
Examiners probe for the candidate's ownership of their work. Confident restatement of the thesis is insufficient. The examiner listens for whether the candidate can defend decisions they made, not just describe them.
Foundational examination structure
Trafford & Leshem, 2008
Stepping Stones to Achieving your Doctorate
The concept of doctorateness: the capacity to locate one's work within a conceptual framework and defend its contribution at the level of the discipline. Viva questions follow a structured arc from contribution through methodology to implications.
Examination arc and doctorateness
Golding et al., 2014
Examining the Examiners
Follow-up questioning is the primary diagnostic tool available to an examiner. A first answer is treated as a hypothesis. The follow-up tests whether the candidate understands the implications of what they said, or is simply recalling prepared material.
Follow-up logic and escalation

Some candidates arrive at their viva having completed three mock sessions. Others arrive alone.

The gap is not about ability. It is about access. PhD candidates at well-resourced departments with engaged supervisors can run mock after mock before the real thing. Candidates at smaller institutions, or working part-time, or without a supervisor who has time, often cannot.

The same asymmetry exists across APC and professional assessment. Candidates at large firms receive structured preparation. Candidates working independently receive a checklist.

PanelReady exists to close that gap. One free session every week, for every candidate, regardless of institution or background. That is not a marketing position. It is the reason this was built.

Read our vision →