Ironically, I just ran into this today while trying to create the process and template for the SSCP. Ac cording to MDCG Guidance Document on the SSCP, the UDI-DI of a "system" is the only one that should be referenced in the SSCP - the component's individual UDI-DI should be 'transparent" to the end user.
I understand that for various reasons, but there is a TD "sampling" method mentioned meaning that the system may receive a DoC without the NB having reviewed the individual component's UDI-DI and corresponding SSCP (if applicable). Then there is a revision history and a part of that is supposed to include when a component is validated by the NB.
For transparency, to me that means that the revision history will not be published on Eudamed? In addition, in the device description per the Guidance Document states:
"In Eudamed, the SSCP is associated to one unique Basic UDI-DI. All UDI- DIs/devices associated to this Basic UDI-DI will be seen as having the same SSCP (a UDI-DI/device must always be associated with one and only one Basic UDI-DI).
If the device is a system of several components/devices, each device in the system should have a Basic UDI-DI but also one Basic UDI-DI for the system. It is the Basic UDI-DI for the system that is intended to be provided in section 1.4 in the template, and that will be associated with the SSCP in Eudamed. The device system, and any Basic UDI-DIs of included devices, should be described in section 3.1."
It entirely possible that I cannot see the "forest through the trees" at the moment, but that seems to be in conflict? the individual UDI-DIs should still be a part of the SSCP? But for transparency, only the system UDI-DI should be shown?
I understand that the original question was for a different purpose, but it seems it is all related or will be?
Thanks - any feedback is appreciated!