The new test launched in November 2005 and was considered by most commentators to be a resounding flop. While the government had taken its time to conduct a national conversation about what the test should include via the Advisory Group, it gave very little time for the Group to design the test and its handbook.

Notably, there were errors galore. The original edition got wrong where Charles II lived in exile, claiming he was in France when, in fact, he was in Holland. Then the test handbook required memorizing a misquote from Sir Winston Churchill. Applicants had to say his words were that ‘never in the course of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few’. Instead, Churchill had actually said ‘never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few’. Not all mistakes were historical. For example, the test handbook wrongly claims Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain, which is composed instead of England, Scotland and Wales.

While most of the original test handbook's headline- grabbing errors are found in its first chapter on British history, this probably had a greater negative bearing on public confidence about the test than pass rates. This is partly because the history chapter in the test handbook was explicitly noted as being included for information- only purposes: none of its content was covered in any test. The test's textual errors may have all been accidental, but they were also largely foreseeable given the circumstances of its creation and launch.

The first test was a rushed, botched job. It states upfront that the Advisory Group ‘tried hard to check all the facts cited, and we apologise if there are mistakes or important omissions’. This is an astonishing admission as the facts as presented make a substantive difference both to whether someone passes the test and may become a British citizen and to whether the test does help ensure integration of migrants. The clear implication is that the test's correct answers might not all be true and this admission can give an appearance of not taking its aim and purpose seriously, as if it did then greater care might be taken to avoid errors and mistaken omissions.