... and questions like "can we list compliance to 62366" ...
I wouldn't say that a product is 'compliant with 62366 (or 62366-X)' any more than I would say a piece of ME software is 'compliant with 62304'. You can self-advertise that you applied the principles of 62366, but 'compliance' is going to demonstrated by the applicable standard (for ME devices, it is 60601-1).
I don't want to speak for
@yodon but I think the point he is making immediately above is that for a somewhat new device there are well-known hazards to which you wouldn't want to expose patients/users before even planning any sort of clinical study. Things like shocks, sharps, burns, pinches were included in the scope of the second edition of 60601-1 and were recognized as 'needing to be controlled/eliminated' independent of a 'modern' 60601-1 compliance assessment that includes risk analysis of a ME device taking Essential Performance (including usability) into account.