Unfortunately this is the standard, not the test lab. Wherever the standard refers to risk management as part of the requirement, the test lab is expected to inspect the risk management file. It's a huge pain not only for the manufacturer but also the test lab. The best thing is to bite the bullet and prepare a few line items or in a separate section in the risk management that cover those clauses. Even if it is in a separate section, make sure to keep the same format as used in the main RM table, i.e. the sequence of events, probability, severity, risk estimation, decision on risk acceptability, risk control (link), verification (link), validation (post risk control numbers) etc.
You can keep it simple. The key point is to understand the "legal" minimum, i.e. the minimum records that ISO 14971 states are required for each line item.
To give an example, Clause 7.2.2 says that detachable parts must be marked with the manufacturer's name and a type/model number unless there is no unacceptable risk. If a manufacturer decides not to mark a detachable part then that manufacturer is required, in a sense legally required, to show probability and severity numbers and other ISO 14971 records to support this decision. It doesn't matter how obvious the decision is, those records are required.
It's important to keep in mind that virtually every medical device on the market has pinch points, areas where they really should be doing more but commercial reality, competition, cost, complexity, conflicts and just plain old "my device is wonderful" bias means that short cuts are taken. More often than not, 601 hits some of these nails on the head in an RM clause. At that point, the probability, severity, risk criteria etc suddenly become more than just redundant