What was published on 21 September

Annex I to the resolution is a table of four column pairs: a list number on the left, "Apto" or "No apto" on the right. No score, no decatype, no reasons. We counted: 1,135 entries, 352 and 783 — the split Atlántico Hoy and eldiario.es/canariasahora reported on 22 September. Marking was anonymous, by code; only on 24 September did a public session in Santa Cruz de Tenerife open the envelopes holding the names.

What the convocation requires — and where it contradicts itself

Base 7.10 is unambiguous: the board's marks "exercise by exercise and in total" must appear in the minutes, "it not being enough for the grade 'no apta' simply to be entered there". Base 7.11 provides that the marks for each exercise be published on the portal of the competent Dirección General.

At the same time Base 7.13.B allows only "apta" or "no-apta" as the outcome and places "the confidentiality of the content and details of the assessment" under data-protection law — yet it also requires: "The final individualised result of this test must be founded and reasoned." Base 9.1.1 repeats the ban on a bare "no apta" grade, but names only the test, the practical case and languages — that is, the knowledge stage. Whether its three-day window also covers the psychometric test, the text does not settle. That is where the dispute sits.

The bar: decatype 5 for reasoning, 8 to 10 for personality

Base 7.13.B requires the traits and the marking system to be published in advance; the criteria paper was signed on 6 August 2026, thirteen days before the test. It sets two unequal bars. For cognitive ability a decatype of 5 or more suffices — by the paper's own words the average of the normative scale. For the personality profile it demands emotional stability, integrity and safety orientation "high to very high" and conscientiousness "high"; only extraversion may be "medium to high". The paper defines the bands itself: "very high" is decatype 10, "high" is 8 and 9, "medium" is 4 to 7 — so four of the five requirements sit at 8 or above. Two further grounds for exclusion follow: scores above S=90 or T=70 on the validity scales may lead to "lack of aptitude through the technical impossibility of a valid assessment", and one of the fourteen personality disorders listed in Base 7.13.B "to a degree above normal" likewise means "no apta".

Is 69 per cent unusual?

The administration publishes no failure rate, only lists. The second round's lists are still on the portal: its psychometric test of 21 September 2024 shows 427 graded, of whom 124 were "No apto" on the test itself — 29.0 per cent; after the interview 148 (34.7 per cent).

Two caveats. The field grew from 427 to 1,135. And setting 68.99 against 34.7 per cent compares unlike with unlike, because the list of 21 September 2026 covers only the test exercises; the interview is still to come. The cleaner comparison is 29.0 against 68.99 per cent. For the first unified round we have no published figure. A heavy cull is not new, then — but the rate has more than doubled against the previous round.

The complaint — and what the administration has said so far

The rejected candidates object, according to Atlántico Hoy and eldiario.es/canariasahora, that only "apto" or "no apto" was published, with no itemised scores and no individual reasons. They are asking for individual reports, access to their answer sheets and a suspension of the deadlines; eldiario.es/canariasahora counts more than 200 of those affected.

No response from the administration has been published: on the Dirección General's portal, on 26 September 2026, no document was newer than the notice of 22 September, and none of the five reports carries a statement. cita.news approached no one. Point "Tercero" of the resolution of 21 September announces that the window for objections will be set only in the resolution approving the provisional marks. That resolution has not appeared; until it does, no deadline is running.