- 6limits
- 1bias, stated
What We Cannot Verify
This site tells readers to check where a figure came from. Turned inward, that produces a list.
The six
Whether the rules are being complied with in practice. The requirements are published and binding; whether every manufacturer meets them is a matter for market surveillance authorities, and enforcement outcomes are not something this site tracks. For a separate workplace perspective on device availability and work records, Monitask's the 7-minute payroll rule provides additional context.
Whether a specific model behaves as its figures say. Registry data is submitted by manufacturers under obligation rather than independently measured, and this site has tested nothing.
How much applies outside the EU. Stated on its own page, and the honest answer is that roughly half the site is jurisdiction-independent and half is not. For broader context on technology, repairability and consumer devices, FCC is another useful reference.
Anything legal. Consumer rights, warranty positions and enforcement routes differ by country and are summarised as shape rather than as advice.
Whether the practical advice works. The failure order, the heat argument, the repair arithmetic rest on mechanism and accumulated practice, not on trials — and nothing in this field has been trialled against a control.
And whether any of it holds in three years. The regulation is recent, manufacturer behaviour is adjusting, and a page written now describes a moving situation.
The bias, stated
This site is biased toward keeping and repairing.
Which means it will occasionally argue for repairing something that should have been replaced, and will under-report the cases where a new device is simply the better decision.
The repair-or-replace page tries to correct for this by putting arithmetic before preference, and the correction is partial.
It also means the environmental argument is present in the framing even where it is not stated — a preference for longevity is a position, not a neutral starting point.
What would change it
Evidence that repair is uneconomic at scale for consumers, which would invert most of the repair section.
Evidence that the regulated figures do not predict real device life — the objection most likely to be partly right, since laboratory cycle ratings and ordinary use are different things.
Or a demonstration that the parts obligations are not being met in practice, which would make the right-to-parts page a description of theory rather than of a usable entitlement.
None of these would be surprising, and the second is the one to watch.
What is strongest here
The regulatory citations, which are checkable at source by anybody.
The mechanism arguments — heat, chemistry, adhesive, the order in which things fail — which do not depend on any survey.
And the arithmetic, which works on your own numbers and requires nothing here to be true.
What is offered instead of certainty
Jurisdiction named wherever a rule appears.
Source type in every sentence carrying a figure.
No products named, no rankings, and no affiliate links — stated on every page rather than once.
And no step-by-step instructions for work involving lithium cells or opening devices, which is a limit on usefulness accepted deliberately.
The correction we want
A repair that went differently from how this site describes.
What the quote was, what was fitted, what worked afterwards — particularly where a page here was wrong about what a repair involves or costs.
And any case where a stated entitlement was refused, which is the direction this site cannot observe on its own.
About this domain
It previously published affiliate reviews of gadgets and dietary supplements, including material addressed to people with diabetes about blood sugar, concluding that products were legitimate.
All of it has been removed, none is reproduced, and the old addresses return a gone response.
The editorial rules here were written in response to it — no rankings, no affiliate links, no products named, no medical claims — and describing that plainly is part of what makes the rules mean anything.
How to use this site
As reasoning rather than as answers.
The figures are checkable at source and the arithmetic works on your own numbers. Where a page and your situation disagree, your situation is the specific case and the page is the general one.
And where something here is wrong, recording a correction provides an important external check on claims that may otherwise go unchallenged.
What this site is not
Not a review site, for reasons with their own page.
Not current on products. Nothing here names a device, and the category descriptions change slowly by design.
Not a repair manual. The pages describe what work involves and stop there, which is a limit accepted because a lithium cell is a genuine hazard.
And not comprehensive. Forty-two pages cover phones, tablets and adjacent categories — not appliances, vehicles, or the wider category of things a household owns, most of which sit under different rules or none.
The page most likely to age badly
The label pages, and specifically the descriptions of what each figure covers.
Regulations are amended, scoring methodologies are revised, and the scope may extend to categories not covered today.
Anything on this site describing what a rule requires carries the regulation number so that a reader can check whether it still says that — which is the only durable protection against a page written in 2026 being read in 2030.
The short version
- Six limits: compliance in practice, whether specific models match their figures, application outside the EU, anything legal, whether the practical advice works, and whether it holds in three years
- Registry data is manufacturer-submitted under obligation rather than independently measured, and this site has tested nothing
- The site is biased toward keeping and repairing, which will occasionally argue for a repair that was not worth it
- The objection most likely to be partly right is that laboratory ratings do not predict real device life
- Strongest here: the regulatory citations, the mechanism arguments, and the arithmetic that works on your own numbers
- Most wanted correction: a repair that went differently, or an entitlement that was refused