I'm not sure at what level your are incorporating resistors into the design, and what (if any) role they specifically play in risk control (for your design), so I'm passing the shaker of salt along with this advice: I'd consider 'surface mount resistors' to 'well understood' enough that (any) risk analysis lines that specifically involve them would be shorts/opens (and possibly flat-out wrong) from manufacturing processes. The MTBF for 'well understood' design solutions is typically so great that any lines of analysis for them should fall out of consideration Strictly speaking you are welcome to include as many failure modes as you want; I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't see such lines of analysis... unless there was a specific consensus standard that required them or the pre-control risk was unacceptably high. (*1)
(*1) This is one of the reasons why I think it is a bad practice to remove 'D' (Detectability) from Design FMEA; to my way of thinking: picking an industry-accepted solution to common design failures in the absence of a specified solution (i.e. before the precise design is established), 'ought to be enough' to have an a priori (pre-controls) 'risk priority number' than a 'roll your own'/'pick at random' approach for certain types of failure modes.
(*1) This is one of the reasons why I think it is a bad practice to remove 'D' (Detectability) from Design FMEA; to my way of thinking: picking an industry-accepted solution to common design failures in the absence of a specified solution (i.e. before the precise design is established), 'ought to be enough' to have an a priori (pre-controls) 'risk priority number' than a 'roll your own'/'pick at random' approach for certain types of failure modes.