There are two different issues here. 1. Is the test being performed to provide confidence to yourself that the product will comply with the standard.
2. Is the test being performed to provide a test report that says "Yes" this item complies with the standard. Dealing with issue one. This is a game of risk assessment, "Do you feel lucky" or how much risk can you or your company afford to take. The margin you set is then directly proportional to how vulnerable you feel. If you are a high profile company, shipping mass produced competitive products, then a failure would be very commercially damaging. Your margin would then need to be worked out as a cost effective level to maintain compliance without an excessive amount of repetitive testing. Conversely, if you feel that your market is calm, your production controls are good and there is very little likelihood of anyone checking your compliance claim. Then you could reduce your margin. Issue two. In this instance the crunch has come, legal proceedings are imminent and evidence is required. Probably an independent lab is involved to provide an impartial assessment. In this instance the limit is the limit. If you are under the limit you pass. With eberyone breathing a sigh of relief. Summing up, I don't think that there can be a definitive margin. Each has to assess their own risk and sink or swim with it. The bigger margin obviously carries the least risk. It also, in most cases, incurs the longer time in the design and rectification phase, which may be unacceptable. The small margin is the high risk, but in some instances can be justified. Regards Chris Olliffe.
