An examination can legitimately use unfamiliar scenarios and language while still assessing the competencies defined by its blueprint.
The relevant question is whether the underlying knowledge, judgment or competence being assessed can be traced back to the applicable ECO.
That makes your first question particularly important.
Candidates should be able to establish which ECO governs an examination on a given date, when that version became effective, and which official learning and preparation resources are aligned with it. If the ECO, course, Study Hall and operational examination appear to differ in terminology or framing, it would also be useful to understand which source is authoritative and how alignment between them is maintained.
I would also be cautious about interpreting 90% scores in Study Hall as evidence that someone should necessarily pass the examination.
Performance on practice materials and performance on the operational examination are not directly equivalent.
But when the preparation resources are official PMI resources, a reasonable expectation of construct alignment remains.
I am not aware of sufficient evidence to conclude from your experience alone that the CPMAI examination has changed or is misaligned, nor that resources beyond the official ones are necessary.
PMI's response could therefore provide useful evidence about the applicable ECO, the alignment of the official preparation resources, and whether any relevant changes have occurred.
For me, the principle is simple: a certification exam should be able to surprise candidates with the scenario, but not with the competence it is actually assessing.
Please do share what you learn from PMI.
