Deficiencies found after filing cost weeks. Certilogix reviews the complete compliance package before the regulator does — whichever market you’re clearing — with page-anchored evidence and citations you can check.
Body-worn device classified as mobile — SAR evaluation skipped
Used at 10 mm from the wearer (p. 1), yet classified mobile under §2.1091 — a category requiring 20 cm. Portable devices need SAR per §2.1093.
Findings from real review runs, condensed.
A query letter means the review clock stops until you respond. They arrive one at a time, weeks after you thought the package was done — and every one was findable before you filed.
From: Application Review <review@your-tcb.example>
Re: FCC ID 2AXXX-EXAMPLE — review on hold
Please address the following before review can continue:
1. The SAR test separation (5 mm, test report p. 41) is inconsistent with the user manual’s instruction (10 mm, p. 12). Clarify per §2.1093.
2. The label location drawing required by §2.1033 was not provided.
The application clock is paused pending your response.
Each deficiency letter costs 3–7 days — and they arrive serially, after you thought the package was done. Launch dates slip a week per miss.
Certilogix finds the deficiencies before the TCB does, so you respond once — or not at all.
The power level in the test report, the label and the manual each look fine alone. No single page is wrong — the package is. Page-by-page review can’t see it.
Certilogix reads the whole package and checks every exhibit against the others.
In a regulatory filing, an invented citation is worse than no review. A tool that pads its report with maybes wastes the exact hours it promised back.
Every citation is verified against the standard; every finding is quoted from the page it came from. Check any of it yourself.
| Exhibit | What slips through | Where it’s governed |
|---|---|---|
| Test reports | Separation distances, power levels and tune-ups that disagree with other exhibits | §2.1093, §2.1046 |
| Label & location drawing | Missing drawings, non-compliant FCC ID format, absent e-label instructions | §2.925, §2.935 |
| User manual | Missing Part 15 statements, RF-exposure instructions that contradict the test setup | §15.19, §15.21, §15.105 |
| Operational description | Antenna gains and modes that don’t match what was actually tested | §2.1033(b) |
| RF exposure exhibit | MPE/SAR computed from stale parameters elsewhere in the package | §1.1310, §2.1091 |
| The package itself | Required exhibits missing for the application type; signs of document tampering | §2.1033 |
The package leaves your hands, and the schedule belongs to someone else’s queue. Pre-check it before the TCB ever sees it — fix everything at once, on your own clock.
Backlog grows; scrutiny can’t shrink. Certilogix is a first pass that shows its work, so reviewers spend their hours judging findings instead of hunting for them.
No. Every CFR reference is resolved against a pinned eCFR corpus before it appears in a report. A citation that doesn’t verify is flagged as unverified — never presented as fact.
Every finding quotes the exact page it came from, side by side with the source PDF — click it and land on the line. Findings that can’t be defended under adversarial cross-checking are dropped to the audit trail, not the report.
Your own pre-filing package as PDFs or a zip of exhibits. For a demo, just enter an FCC ID.
You do. Accept, reject or defer each finding — every decision stays on the record, and each re-review shows which findings persist and which are new.
A live review of your package — or a public one from the FCC EAS — walking every finding and its evidence.