Okay, thanks for the clarification 
NANA
In my opinion, it was not the question, where the question to one part is needed to answer the other part (i.e. it does not contradict the CFAI approach). You can think of it as a substep.
I have seen many questions in practice test, where you could come up with the answer faster, BECAUSE you had calculated one of the components in the past. For example, one question could ask for an equity risk premium, and the other question could ask for expected return where you can use the earlier calculated ERP.
What the CFAI means by independent question, is that the scenarios presented in one question should not be held present when answering other questions (rather those help in the case itself).
I had even seen questions in ethics sections where question 5 could be answered quicker if you recall what the answer to question 1 or 2 was, because there was something in the text early on that had to be taken into account to answer question 5 (not just second to last paragraph as it usually is).
^+1
Most of us already know this. We have taken all the same old AM exams. The reason we say this year it was an âoddâ question is because, using your example, itâd be like having to solve for the expected return in question 1 and then question 2 asking for the ERP. Basically the opposite of what you said and seemingly âout of orderâ. Most of us also agree it was fair, just confusing and odd.
Is there a CFAI Social media guideline? 
It did caught me off guard for a sec, but I managed to figure it out and had no problems
Guideline for what specifically?
Now i think i recall the specific question being discussed.
Did throw me off for a good additional 5 to 10 min (a time i never made back :/)
Is possible to solve i) without doing ii) but itâs not an instinctive method.
After looking at the question more closely, I did ii) first and went back to do i) without using anything from ii)
Calculations were actually extremely simple once you figure out what the question is asking (or at least i hope i figured out).
You should be able to guess what iâm referring to.
I didnât see any special mention in Schweserâs and had trouble with a question. Wonder where the correct reference is.
Answer from ii) is not needed to solve for i).
Answer from ii) can be crossed out (minus + plus) if you think about extended equation to solve for i).
Thatâs how I solved, and donât quite understand all these debate.
Am I missing anything?
I donât think it works that way.
Youâre giving me chills now, I lost 8 mints in the AM! Dam*! Its haunting me every next moment.