In my experience, the integrator is the party responsible for final system compliance, as configured (IOW - I agree with Bob). If something fails in the test in the final configuration, it's just good business sense for all parties involved to work trogether to solve the problem.
Example: My company has a few deals with a few computer companies which integrate some of our cards into their systems. Our cards are CE-marked Class B, having been tested in a few "representative" systems from a few manufacturers (I suppose that's the "due dilligence" on our part). Computer company A has had no problems certifying with our cards. Computer company B has had a good track record with us, but finds with their new zippy SuperSpecial model that they have a problem which is related to our card (or a peripheral attached to our card). It makes sense for Computer company B, my company, and whomever is the peripheral supplier to look into this problem together and offer final solutions (this scenario has happened a few times in the past, and the problems were rectified to the satisfaction of all parties in a rather short time period). Steve Chin StreamLogic Corp. Bob Martin wrote: >Most definitely.... The system integrator is ALWAYS responsible for the >final outcome (whether it is internal cards or external printers as in >the original case). <snip> Tony Fredriksson wrote: >This is very intriguing. Let me throw out a scenario for comment. >Let's say that I have a PC with CE marking and I integrate a video >card and 15" monitor, also with CE Marking, and all declared to Class B >levels. > >Now suppose I import the system to Germany and don't test to >verify the combination since these "new guidelines" say that it is OK to >do so based on the fact that all of the items bear the CE Marking. >The authorities obtain a sample, test it, and find that video >emissions are over the Class B limits at multiple frequencies (this >happens all the time by the way). <snip>
