I downloaded and searched for this terminology in all the OD documents available as well as "AD" documents, including all past revisions I could locate. Some 300+ documents. To set the stage, I always think of type testing as being an exercise in "cause and effect". That is, some defect (cause) potentially results in a hazard (effect). Saying there is a deficiency, fault or even failure has not identified a hazard. Here is what I found (or didn't find).
"Fault" generally occurs in context of a device failure, fault condition or control fault. This seems to me like a condition of the equipment, not a verdict as such. Not a very satisfactory usage. "Deficiency" or "Deficient" do not occur anywhere. Also unsatisfactory... I also searched the IEC Electrotechnical Dictionary: "Fault" appears several times in Area 192 "Dependability", none of which are specifically referre3d to as a verdict or outcome of type testing. 192-03-17 failure mode 192-04-01 fault, <of an item> 192-04-02 software fault 192-04-04 permanent fault, <of an item> 192-04-05 transient fault, <of an item> 192-04-06 intermittent fault, <of an item> 192-04-07 dormant fault, <of an item> 192-04-08 latent fault, <of an item> 192-04-09 systematic fault, <of an item> 192-04-10 specification fault, <of an item> 192-04-11 design fault, <of an item> 192-04-12 manufacturing fault, <of an item> 192-04-13 data-sensitive fault, <of a software item> 192-04-14 program-sensitive fault, <of a software item> "Deficiency" appeared in the dictionary a few times, 192-04-01 fault, <of an item> 521-02-04 impurity 845-10-53 mine safety lam 903-01-16 malfunction Again in Area 192 for dependability and referring to the fault of an item. "inability to perform as required, due to an internal state "Note 1 to entry: A fault of an item results from a failure, of the item itself, or from a deficiency in an earlier stage of the life cycle, such as specification, design, manufacture or maintenance. See latent fault " Also in area 192 for Risk Assessment under definition for 903-01-16 malfunction "design error or deficiency (e.g. software errors);" Incidentally, I searched for definitions of the terms "verdict", "pass", and "fail" with similar unsatisfactory results. I know many times people will say the definition of terms are self-evident and in the case of the IEC 60204-1, it would seem the agencies who write TRFs are making a change practice with no clarification. And obviously, the subsequent revisions of the TRF have carried this over without question. Maybe I'm asking too much or being too picky but is seems to me when there is a deviation from the accepted worldwide practice (Pass, Fail, N/A), an explanation should be given. Thanks all for hearing me out and have a great weekend. Doug On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:59 PM Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I'll look. > > I already know there's no explanation in OD 2020 but possible in something > else. > > Thanks! Doug > > Currently out of the office and working from my Android phone > *From:* ri...@ieee.org > *Sent:* December 13, 2018 12:19 PM > *To:* doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Reply-to:* ri...@ieee.org > *Subject:* RE: [PSES] TRF Verdicts > > > > Hi Doug: > > > > Maybe one of these documents will have the definitions you are looking for. > > > > https://www.iecee.org/documents/refdocs/ > > > > Best wishes for the holiday season, > > Rich > > > > > > *From:* Doug Powell <doug...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:29 PM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* [PSES] TRF Verdicts > > > > Greetings all, hope your week is going well, > > > > I see differences in TRFs for both IEC and EN standards relating to the > verdict columns. IEC OD 2020 ed. 3.3 specifies allowed verdicts are *Pass, > Fail *and *N/A (Not applicable)*. There is an exception for MED category > allowing *N/E (Not evaluated)*. However, I commonly see in TRFs for > EN/IEC 60204-1 these verdicts: *N/A, Yes, No *and *Fault *or *Deficiency*. > I am a little uncertain about what the word "No" means in this context. OD > 2020 has no exception for MACH products, and yet I see these verdicts > commonly used. Also, within the TRF there is no definition of what these > verdicts specifically mean. > > > > Can anyone explain why these are in use and what they mean, exactly? > > > > Thanks! Doug > > > > > > > -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
