The acquired cohort contains 3 official alert references published from 2005-12-16 to 2019-01-04. This page compares 2 selected, distinct product descriptions, including portable luminary for children. The other 1 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about labels/instructions, accessible edges. 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.
Portable luminary for children · 0887/07
Report published 2007-08-24 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Portable luminary for children with technical data: 230V, 50Hz, 15W, consisting of: body in the shape of crossing cone made from textile; metal base with cylindrical form; soft body doll, with blue eyes and braid blond hair with red ribbon, sit on the base of the luminary, with spread hands, dressed in a textile cami-knicks, put on bootees; lamp holder #27, switch with technical data: 250V, 2#; 170 #m long double-core supplying cable; non-rewirable plug. [1]
Reported risk explanation
This product poses a serious risk of electric shock because :- live parts are accessible,- there is no transformer giving a SELV (Safety Extra Low Voltage), - the insulation of the outer and inner supplying wires can be damaged when passing through sharp cutting edges, - the luminaire has no adequate mechanical strength, - there are no instructions for use. This product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 605908. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authoritiesDate of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2005-12-16 · notifying country Hungary · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Desk lamp with moving picture foils showing aquarium and provided with a G 23 capped circular fluorescent lamp (240V~; 50 Hz; Class II)Type/model: ZL 03328620.05. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The wires can be damaged by the sharp edges of the ‘wireways’, the moving parts of the lamp, the sharp metal parts and screws. The cross sectional area of the core is less than 0,2 mm2. During the replacement of the light source the live parts are accessible. There were no instructions for use attached to the product in Hungarian. The warnings and information are in English on the packaging of the product.The lamp does not comply with the LVD Directive and the European Standards. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authority.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-12-16 and 2019-01-04. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2007
1
2019
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.
Electric shock: 3 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; 1 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.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
Accessible edges and points — what evidence do we have?
Compare the particular accessible edge or point, material, geometry and use conditions with the reported cutting mechanism. Ask a specialist to justify the applicable assessment and criteria for your actual product and users.
Useful evidence: Dimensioned edge/point drawings, material and finish specifications, use/accessibility context and relevant existing evaluation.
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.
