In the meantime, a few observations:
1) It's a ton of material to cover. It doesn't cover any more breadth than the Level I, but with fewer questions, there are fewer opportunities to make up an gaps with other questions.
2) There's much less calculation than in the Level I. More of the questions are qualitative, and of the questions that do require calculation, the arithmetic is usually pretty straightforward. While the Level I might ask you to calculate a NPV or the value of an annuity or depreciation based on double-declining balance, most of the work here is in recognizing the type of problem and setting it up. You could probably do the math with a slide rule.
This means that:
3) More of the questions - although not all - of the the know-it-or-not variety.
4) There are three choices instead of four. This makes is harder to sneak in the two-for-one questions: A and B, A not-B, B not-A, not-A not-B. And yet...
5) They still manage to do so, along the lines of, "under the so-and-so theory of capital allocation, Mrs. Smith should put what percent of her money in Amalgamated Congoleum?" You need to know what the theory is, what it says about this specific calculation, and then you need to do the computation.
In short, it's not just a knowledge test, it also requires you to put pieces together.
I do know I did better than last time, but whether I did well enough to pass, well, we'll find out in a about 2 months. The monks grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.