This thread is very enlightening.
I was operating under the assumption that, based on the idea that information provided was generally unreliable as a risk control (it can easily be forgotten, lost, or simply not read/consumed at all), that this was not considered an acceptable risk mitigation (at least according to the EN version).
Prior to reading this thread that was my interpretation of the deviation.
However, I'm now struggling to grasp what is "information about residual risk", and what is "information for safety".
For example, consider the following hazardous situation:
"Enclosure cracks, exposing user to sharp edge."
In the accompanying documentation, there could be any of the following statements:
1. "Cracked enclosure can result in exposure to sharp edges."
2. "Do not use if enclosed is cracked. Cracked enclosure can expose user to sharp edges"
3. "Inspect enclosure prior to use. Do not use if enclosure is cracked."
In this example, (1) would qualify as informing of residual risk, whereas (2) & (3) could qualify as risk-mitigations? Do I have this correct?