Mind you, it's not very likely that there will be a serious problem with a device that will only manifest in a random unit at an obscure market and not surface at all in at least one of that device's major markets.
On a more general comment, I think that, right now, these expectations may not be that clear for a lot of people (regulators and evaluators included, that's why we've been seeing a number of NCs related to these being raised recently), but newer and future regulations will make these expectations more clear, including clear requirements.
In fact, I've been having some trouble with clients because they do seem to understand PMS as only adverse event reporting and field safety actions (which is the part of PMS that is explicit regulated right now), but regulatory expectations obviously far exceed those.
One interesting problem I noted is the lack of focus on gathering (using reactive and proactive methods) positive input related to device experience which can help in several ways, for example, in confirming performance claims, being part of PMCF, confirming risk analysis, and the like. I've got some clients which are so focused on the "regulatory" PMS that they do not even have a place in their QMS to record positive feedback (and they end up being include as complaints
Even with the revised MDD regulations in Europe mentioning "device experience"which includes positive and negative, my experience is that most manufacturer and a lot of evaluators have still been focusing only on negatives. And then the manufacturer has a lot of trouble to show compliance with some of the expectancies related to positives (clinical evaluation is clearly one of those).