I think the NC one should read <=218 based on what has been posted
Site that cannot be mentioned said 219 for Georgia today at 12:44 pm. And NC at 218 at 12:27 pm today.
DS is in with 216 in Utah!!! 
@saillakeerie thanks, although ugh, it means she did miss it by one. C’est la vie.
Same site now has cutoffs listed for every state.
@MotherOfDragons at post #120:
Festus says:
August 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm
Do ya’ll know anything about Georgia?
Reply
Adam Ingersoll says:
August 31, 2016 at 12:44 pm
219
@SouthernMother if the calculated SI ( [2xEB + Math]/10 ) is 209 or more, then yes
In fact, if it weren’t for the above-mentioned individual in #130, he with the unnamed site would not have been able to complete the cut-off analysis so quickly. Huzzah!
I don’t think we’re sure of anything - but I don’t think we suspect any mistakes either.
Apparent Mistake-
There is a question regarding the Washington (state) cutoff. Looks like it was incorrectly assumed to be 220, but now there is evidence it is 221.
Hoping there are no other errors (or they’re in the other direction).
And that as individuals get their own announcements, they post here with confirmations.
@Mamelot yep, thanks, we know. It’s all good. We’re a little bummed that she didn’t get that feather in her cap, but it’s not a tragedy
@WhataProcess that’s a very good idea. Also, by Sept. 14th all will be known because NMSC will give you the cut-off for your state if you call them. So hopefully those who just need that level of confirmation will make those calls.
@MotherofDragons, as usual, someone posted right before I did. I finally had to switch browsers because Safari kept logging me out. Ya think that the volume on CC and that other site must have been causing some major glitch? 
Yay! Looks like Washington is down to 220 again! Adam has an explanation in the comments.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Please note that commenting on moderation is a violation of the Terms of Service. I had to delete quite a few posts. More comments will result in warnings.
Free speech is fine as long as it conforms to the Terms of Service - you agreed to follow these rules when you signed up on the website.
My daughter’s HS just congratulated the six NM semi finalist, all were at 220 or above. From TX
Alabama 215
Alaska 213
Arizona 219
Arkansas 213
California 221
Colorado 218
Connecticut 220
Delaware 218
DC 222
Florida 217
Georgia 219
Hawaii 217
Idaho 214
Illinois 219
Indiana 217
Iowa 215
Kansas 217
Kentucky 215
Louisiana 214
Maine 214
Maryland 221
Massachusetts 222
Michigan 216
Minnesota 219
Mississippi 212
Missouri 216
Montana 210
Nebraska 215
Nevada 214
New Hampshire 216
New Jersey 222
New Mexico 213
New York 219
North Carolina 218
North Dakota 209
Ohio 217
Oklahoma 213
Oregon 219
Pennsylvania 218
Rhode Island 217
South Carolina 215
South Dakota 209
Tennessee 218
Texas 220
Utah 215
Vermont 215
Virginia 221
Washington 220
West Virginia 209
Wisconsin 215
Wyoming 209
Commended 209 - Same for all states nationally
I didn’t see a final list. I believe these are all updated.
Sorry, perhaps this was already answered, but how can there be odd numbered cutoffs if the SI is calculated by adding 3 scores from subsections and then multiplying the sum by 2 (e.g. SI=(33+33+33)*2)? Presuming there are no decimals in the sections scores (e.g. 33.5, which, I think, is a sure bet), there cannot therefore be cutoffs that are odd numbers.Also, I believe the commended SI cutoff was reported as not higher than 209 (odd number again), rather than at least 209. With the above “quoted” NMSF cutoffs, the NMSF selection percentile is upwards of 99.5 and in some states can be as high as 99.8; AFAIK, NM Commended cutoff traditionally has been ~98ile, but with SI at 209 it is likely above 99%ile.
Math can be a section score ending in .5.
Also, College Board said percentiles were not based on the kids that took the test, but how they though kids would do on the test based on some group data. They also did this on the SAT once the test changed over to the new format in March of 2016. It baffles all of us why there just was not a flat percentile from the actual test takers.
You cannot do a flat percentile of actual test takers because the profile of test takers varies by test date. For this year in particular, many of the “informed” students avoided taking the new SAT completely, and either took the old SAT or the ACT. This introduces a skew.
Creating a concordance table attempts to adjust for any skew. Of course, they could have made a mistake with the concordance table as well.