Based on my experience from the may 2021 part 1 exam, I can confirm that GARP questions were addressed with respect to the LOs... problem is that (at least for part 1) there are 1500 LOs for a total of 100 tested questions on exam day, so GARP can (and in the may exam they did it) ask anything from the most evident LOs (i.e. minimum variance hedge) to more obscure LOs (i.e. kandall thau correlation coefficient)... and they also are more focused on the qualitative aspect (deep understanding) of the LOs than just a bunch of quantitative questions ... at the end of the day they want to be reasonably sure that you had put a sufficient amount of time to understand conceptually the content. For people that claimed that the exam was not quantitative enough, do not forget that the practice that you put in (answering BT questions for example) just reinforced this qualitative understanding.
Thanks @nc27
... many of those 1500 LOs are expansive or quite permissive in their interpretation (don't get me wrong, many are quite exact, in particular the calculations). When GARP says that "Every FRM Exam question maps to at least one learning objective," this is a subtle point, but this basically pre-qualifies almost any risk-related question. Give me a risk question, and I can map it to some combination of fragments of different LOs. Further, relative to this universe, GARP has published a very narrow cumulative set of Practice Questions (because each year's are not fresh, but rather the majority of their PQs over the last, say, 5 or 8 years, in fact are recycled questions or merely corrections; some of those Practice Exam questions have been revised for imprecisions/errors twice or three times). This creates what i have called a "lack of prospective clarity:" it is very hard to deduce what candidates can expect! Logically, you can expect anything within the entire fog of risk. When the questions tilt qualitative, this massive map of LOs is effectively a blanket that spans a large territory, arguably too much. That's why I have constantly written that the FRM exam is "over-assigned" by which I mean "too many LOs." This over-assignment varies; e.g., P2.T6. Gregory's Counterparty risk has many LOs with a remote chance of being tested. Another factor particular to P1: GARP's new readings are often shallow (i.e., insufficient to the LO nuances) relative to previous author(s), with fewer illustrated examples, and the EOC PQs are not exam-level questions (!). Let's get real, this is mostly for the convenience of GARP. The approach basically allows them to ask any set of exam questions and it's defensible according to the approach of (i) massive terrain of 1500+ LOs, (ii) permissively flexible "to-multiple-LO" mapping, (iii) broad interpretation of LOs, (iv) in P1's case, lack of EOC PQs that are representative, and (v) a narrow database of actual Practice Questions. An optimistic view of all of this is something like, "risk is dynamic, the exam updates every year, cutting edge!!"
I hope that's helpful,
