Standards

Compliance is not certification

2 min readMati Melchior
Compliance is not certification

A confusion that appears in almost every early-stage robotics company I review: treating compliance and certification as the same thing.

"We comply with ISO 13849" means the company followed the standard's requirements during development and self-declares that the product meets them. This is a statement made by the manufacturer. No external party has verified it. The manufacturer writes a Declaration of Conformity, applies the CE mark, and places the product on the market.

"We're certified to ISO 13849" means an independent third party — a certification body like TÜV, UL, or Pilz — assessed the product, reviewed the safety analysis, examined the design documentation, and confirmed that the requirements are met. This is evidence, not a statement.

Both have legal standing. Both allow you to sell in the EU. But they carry very different weight when something goes wrong. A self-declared compliance statement is the manufacturer's word. A certification report is an independent assessment. In a liability dispute, the difference matters.

The EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230 changes the equation for a specific category of machines. Under the old Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, most machines could be self-certified by the manufacturer. Only a narrow list in Annex IV required third-party assessment. Under the new regulation, Article 25 and Annex I Part A define categories of high-risk machines that now require notified body involvement. This includes machines with AI-based safety functions.

For any robotics company building machines that use AI in their safety-related control systems — and selling into Europe after 20 January 2027 — self-declaration is no longer sufficient. A notified body must be involved in the conformity assessment process.

The practical implication: if your compliance strategy today is "we follow ISO 13849 and self-declare," you need to ask whether your product falls into the Annex I Part A categories. If it does, January 2027 means you need a notified body. That's a budget line item, a timeline addition, and a relationship you should be building now — not in December 2026.

Share

Sources

  1. EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2023/1230, Article 25 + Annex I Part A
  2. TÜV Rheinland — Conformity assessment under the new Machinery Regulation
  3. ISO 17065 — Conformity assessment: requirements for bodies certifying products
  4. Pilz — CE marking and conformity assessment

Cite this

APA

Melchior, M. (2026, June 17). Compliance is not certification. Physical AI Safety. https://physical-ai-safety.com/blog/compliance-is-not-certification

BibTeX

@misc{melchior2026compliance,
  author       = {Melchior, Mati},
  title        = {{Compliance is not certification}},
  howpublished = {Physical AI Safety},
  year         = {2026},
  month        = jun,
  date         = {2026-06-17},
  url          = {https://physical-ai-safety.com/blog/compliance-is-not-certification}
}
Published

Mati Melchior · Physical AI Safety Researcher

Physical AI Safety Dispatch

Monthly analysis. No spam. One exclusive insight per issue.

One issue per month. Unsubscribe in one click from any email. Privacy policy.

Regulation

What five weeks of counting found

104 days separate 8 October 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply as a cut-off with no transition period. Thirty-nine notified bodies held a current notification on 13 September 2026, against one hundred and forty-four under the Directive it replaces. No harmonised standard has yet been cited under the Regulation, the application guide is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, no readiness figure has been published, and none of the seven certification bodies checked publishes how long the work takes. The deadline is measured to the day. Almost nothing behind it is.

Read →

Regulation

You have 127 days. Nobody publishes how long this takes.

127 days separate 15 September 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply. Seven certification bodies were checked for a published duration benchmark and not one publishes it, so what follows is what is documented instead: the first assessor notified on 8 September 2024, roughly twenty-eight months before the Regulation applies, no harmonised standard yet cited under the Regulation, and seven trade associations on record that machinery was the only sector left out of the Omnibus IV transition period.

Read →

We use cookies

This site uses essential cookies to function and, with your consent, analytics cookies (Google Analytics) to understand how the site is used. Learn more.