In your Written Submission you are required to explore some of the content of your
Recital programme and to focus in detail on a particular aspect or aspects surrounding
the composition and performance history of one or more items of the chosen
repertoire. You do not need to make reference to the whole programme.
Appropriate areas for discussion might include issues about period and style or
analytical approaches that illuminate interpretation. Other possible topics include
issues of authenticity, reception history, the influence of wider cultural developments,
the study of manuscript sources, the history of critical thought in relation to the
repertoire, and the relationship between each work and its composer’s output. You
might also wish to research the historical context of the chosen repertoire or the way in
which a work exploits the particular idiom of the instrument/voice.
The Submission should include personal insights and contain substantial evidence of
critical evaluation and appropriate research. It should also reflect the preoccupations
relevant to you as a performer as well as any issues that you take into account in your
work. Above all, the Associated Board would like to encourage candidates to think
creatively about their Submission and to research a topic that focuses on an area of
personal interest, i.e. not necessarily one covered in the suggestions given above.

Trevor Herbert’s Music in Words (London: ABRSM, 2001) defines presentational
conventions for written work, while also providing a basis for researching and writing
at higher educational levels.

Hi I got my FRSM in 2004, and though the syllabus has changed somewhat, I thought it doesn't hurt to say something here

I am not very sure of what you mean by the same format, but if you mean to follow the layout of programme notes in the written submission - I guess it is fine (if you mean starting with the title of the piece, the composer, brief background and then go into greater details), since the syllabus did not give you the exact format to use so you should have great freedom in deciding that.

I wrote mine like I would for a thesis, with an introduction then moving on to each piece in detail, with a conclusion. I think for a scholar at the FRSM level there has to be some pervading theme, or at least a focus, in your submission, instead of being just a piece of programme note in greater depth, with no link between the pieces.

I'm sure with your academic training, you'll be fine with it~ looking forward to seeing your name on the annual review