In the previous issue (Vol. 1), we organized the reasons why the instruction manual is pointed out during the review process. In this article, as a continuation, we will specifically explain the common "deficiency patterns." To those in charge of companies aiming for CE certification or who have just completed it: "We have arranged the design and safety measures. Yet, we were pointed out for deficiencies in the instruction manual during the review." Such voices are repeatedly heard in the field of CE compliance. Annex I §1.7.4 of the Machinery Directive/Machinery Regulations establishes the content requirements for the instruction manual as an independent chapter, and the certification body clearly checks that section. Deficiencies in the instruction manual are returned not as design issues but as "document issues." This time, we will organize five recurring deficiency patterns that arise in the review process, along with the relevant standard clauses. Please check this to prevent rework in CE compliance.

This column is a special series consisting of 12 installments themed around user manuals. In the first installment, we will focus on the often-overlooked "risks of postponing the user manual" in relation to CE marking compliance. In the process of obtaining CE marking, attention is often concentrated on design and safety measures, leading to cases where the preparation of the user manual is delayed. However, in practice, deficiencies in the user manual can lead to the following issues: - Rejection just before the review - Increased costs due to design revisions - Schedule delays - Product liability (PL liability) risks after shipment Even if CE marking is obtained, it is important to be aware that insufficient information provision can leave risks associated with the product.