I wouldn't worry too much about section 4. It reminds me of 2015, when they gave a slightly harder operations question and a very straightforward finance question. I say that ops was harder because many kids wouldn't be able to demonstrate why it gave them a competitive advantage (cost leadership/differentiation).
This was that on steroids. Price/quality interaction is a small element of the syllabus, and t no one guessed they would ask it, let alone the impact of globalisation on it. The question was, in my mind impossibly hard. Like it was one of the hardest case study questions in the syllabus. Why?
People are really bad at finance. Apparently the difference between the averages of the two 2015 S4 essays was something around 4 (8 v 12 iirc). The average for the state in the finance question was 8. People suck at finance, they get scared, they don't know what to do, and they turn to the other question. This year, it was much harder to do so. You turn to the other question, and its harder. NESA are trying to challenge students with harder exams, and require more critical thinking. This is a textbook example of them doing so.
The average will be very low.
I think it became clear that finance was going to be asked again when the cohort performed poorly in 2015, however, they weren't going to ask it the year after, and in 2017 the Social Studies/Humanities Inspector made a huge point of telling their exam boards to write unexpected exams, so they gave similar essays for a second year in a row in 2017.
The markers may be generous, they may not. But you are in company, I personally estimate that more than half the people that chose 27 will have written significantly about operations. Yes it is a marketing strategy, but ops does have a role to play, and they might view operations as valid material. No one knows, and I expect there will be a very very very long briefing session in the marking centre. But an ideal answer would an explanation about how PQ interaction was affected by globalisation at three companies.