This comparison covers 2 official alert references, including decorative articles, published from 2005-02-11 to 2006-02-17. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about ignition/materials, stability/load. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Product label not stated · 0084/06
Report published 2006-02-17 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Decorative oil lamps "RAYBURN"Type/model: (VARIOUS)- CODES RAY590 to RAY596. [1]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of ingestion of lamp oil due to the fact that closures of filler opening did not have the required two independent mechanisms to be opened. The lamp has a tendency to tip over and leak oil poses severe flammability risk. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Importer voluntarily is going to recall the product.Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2005-02-11 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin Hong Kong
Reported product description
Decorative tea light holder “Shen Li International Ltd”. [2]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of fire and burns. Lack of stability of the holder; excessive temperature of the holder surface (145°) and of the upper candles with possible wax ignition. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary withdrawal from distribution and recall from consumers.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
2 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-02-11 and 2006-02-17. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2006
1
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Burns, Fire: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Fire: 1 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
2 distinct descriptions displayed; 0 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Stability and load-bearing use — what evidence do we have?
Identify the intended loads, support/attachment design, adjustment positions and use surface. Compare the reported collapse or instability mechanism with the actual configuration and agree a supported investigation rather than copying another case’s response.
Material, ignition and use context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the relevant material/component and exposure to the reported ignition mechanism. Document product configuration and intended use before agreeing justified methods and criteria. The recorded fire concern does not select a complete mandatory test panel.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the recorded product features and failure mechanism with your product. Confirm the applicable product regime, deciding evidence, operator responsibilities and justified next steps. This does not assume that GPSR or a representative appointment applies to every alert category.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
