Article 11(1): the injured person must prove (a) defect, (b) damage, and (c) the causal link between the defect + the damage. Article 11(2): defectiveness shall be PRESUMED where any of the following applies: (a) the defendant fails to comply with an obligation to disclose evidence at its disposal pursuant to Article 9; (b) the claimant establishes that the product does not comply with a mandatory product-safety requirement (e.g. GPSR EHSR + MR Annex III + EU AI Act Article 9 + CRA Annex I); (c) the claimant establishes that the damage was caused by an obvious malfunction during reasonably foreseeable use. Article 11(3): the causal link between the defect + damage shall be PRESUMED where it has been established that the product is defective + the damage is of a kind typically consistent with the defect. Article 11(4): where a court finds that, due to technical or scientific complexity, the claimant faces excessive difficulties in proving the defectiveness OR causation, the court shall apply the presumption requested by the claimant, provided the claimant has demonstrated (a) likelihood that the product is defective + (b) the defect / causal link is more likely than not. Article 11(5): defendants may rebut presumptions.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.