Then you'd obviously need to retest/certify, right?
If you don't want to deal with the requirements of a particular market, you are free NOT to sell into that market.
This suggests you have a s*it-ass testing protocol in place. You've got bigger problems than the cost of certification.
No. You should move into the aerrospace industry and watch to see how many flights fall out of the sky because you aren't a very good engineer.
A design doesn't have to be "perfect". But, incrementally tweeking it isn't a real engineering approach to perfection or even a mediocre product.
If you can't afford to recertify that often, then HOLD all of your changes until it makes sense to release a "model 2". Imagine the CM issues that selling a bunch of DIFFERENT devices that all call themselves "Model 1". Do you keep a log of which S/Ns have which "modifications"? When a customer calls in, do you ask him which *version* of Model 1 he owns?
So, you're just a lousy designer. Maybe basket weaving would be something more suited to your "each one is different" approach to your market.
You don't have to. You can explicitly disclain suitability for any purpose. And still find yourself in a courtroom.
Or, worse: someone DEMONSTRATING the shitiness of your product in a live video so you can see how much negative publicity it has generated.
Ah, so you're saying that these industries never see legal setbacks? The Sacklers may want to talk to you...
And what are "best practices" when it comes to a product that requires certification? Certify when you've got enough cash on hand to afford it?
So, a self declaration of conformity should have the same degree of latitude: "it FEELS like it SHOULD be conformant..."
And, you as the "engineer" admit that you should be aware of the requirements and the reasons behind them -- surely not the injured party, right? After all, YOU took their money while they ASSUMED you were giving them a viable product...
Ever been in a real factory? Not a garage shop that turns out hobbyist kit but something that makes televisions? Automobiles? Ball bearings? Hand tools?
It's not some guy tinkering in a corner. And, it's not a bunch of ad hoc customs that get things made. Why do you think I -- in that QC role -- was prevented from touching an object unless I was willing to scrap it? Surely I could make an informed decision as to whether my action had altered the quality/merchantability of the product; it's not like I put it in a vise and tried to see if I could BREAK it...
Engineering is more than "science" it's also practices and discipline.
I didn't bother pursuing it. It was a loss that I absorbed -- as was the time donated to performing the task in the first place.
OTOH, they lost those 11 sales as the items were returned. And, the company (vendor) who sold them and had to accept the return likely wasn't happy about his lost time (assuming he could resell the returned products).
People (and organizations) have memories. Especially when they feel they've been "disappointed" with a product/service/personnel.
And, people share those experiences. So, you've got "negative publicity" that you don't even have a chance to counter -- no one invites you to dispute the claims someone is making about you, your product, etc. They just make their own decisions based on what they think of the information provided: "Do I *really* want to gamble on this, given the experience that has been reported to me, first hand?"
But, its your business. You can rationalize running it any way you want. Keep a log of every item you've sold and how it differs from every other SIMILAR item. There's no cost to doing that, is there?
Oh, wait...