Why Compliance Isn’t a One-Size-Fits-All Decision
Why Compliance Isn’t a One-Size-Fits-All Decision
On paper, compliance looks binary. A product is either approved or it isn’t.
In practice, the path to approval depends just as much on how a product is built, installed, and used as it does on what the product is.
We see this play out every week with the same types of equipment: industrial control panels, fuel-burning appliances, custom-built machinery, limited-run systems. The product doesn’t change but the approval path does.
And choosing the wrong one can cost time, money, or both.
The Same Product, Three Different Realities
Same enclosure. Same components. Same electrical ratings.
Depending on the situation, that exact panel might require Certification, a Field Evaluation, or Unit Verification.
That’s where confusion usually starts.
When Certification Makes Sense
Certification is designed for products that will be manufactured repeatedly and placed into the market as standardized units.
It assumes:
- a defined design
- controlled production
- ongoing compliance through surveillance or follow-up programs
Certification works best when a product will live beyond a single project, when it needs to be replicated, sold, distributed, and supported over time.
But certification also assumes something else that often gets overlooked: that the product can be removed from its environment and tested as a complete unit.
That assumption doesn’t always hold.
When the Product Can’t Leave the Site
Now take that same control panel, but it’s already installed inside a facility.
Or it’s physically too large to ship. Or it’s part of a one-off system built around a specific process. Or it was modified on site after delivery.
This is where Field Evaluation exists not as a shortcut, but as a different regulatory tool entirely.
Field Evaluations acknowledge a reality that certification doesn’t address well: some products are built for a location, not a production line.
Instead of approving a design in theory, a Field Evaluation assesses:
- how the product is actually constructed
- how it’s installed
- how it interfaces with its surroundings
- whether it complies as built, not as intended
It’s not about future units. It’s about this one, right here, right now.
When Neither of Those Is Quite Right
There’s a third scenario that sits between certification and field evaluation, and it’s often misunderstood.
Unit Verification applies when:
- only one unit, or a limited batch, is required
- the product meets applicable standards
- full certification isn’t the most efficient path
In these cases, the product is still tested and evaluated to the full applicable standard, just without committing to an ongoing certification program.
What makes Unit Verification valuable isn’t reduced rigor. It’s proportionality.
For manufacturers building limited-quantity equipment, Unit Verification avoids over-engineering the approval process while still ensuring compliance, traceability, and confidence.
Why the Distinction Matters
From the outside, these approval paths can look like interchangeable options.
They aren’t. Or not exactly.
Each exists to solve a different problem:
- Certification supports scale and repeatability
- Field Evaluation supports site-specific reality
- Unit Verification supports limited production without unnecessary overhead
The mistake we see most often isn’t choosing the “wrong” option, but rather, it’s assuming there’s only one option in the first place.