Article 9 IMPORTER OBLIGATIONS: importers shall place on the market only products that comply with Annex I accessibility requirements (Article 9(1)); before placing the product on the market, importers must ensure that the manufacturer has carried out the conformity-assessment procedure + prepared technical documentation + that the product bears CE marking + is accompanied by the required documents + that the manufacturer has complied with Article 7 (Article 9(2)); importers must indicate their name + registered trade name + registered trademark + address on the product (Article 9(3)) - this is the importer-identification triple alongside the manufacturer triple in Article 7(7); keep documentation for 5 years (Article 9(5)); take corrective action where they have reason to believe the product is not in conformity (Article 9(7)); cooperate with competent authority (Article 9(8)). Article 10 DISTRIBUTOR OBLIGATIONS: distributors must act with due care in relation to the Article 9 + Article 7 requirements when making the product available on the market (Article 10(1)); before making the product available distributors shall verify that the product bears CE marking + is accompanied by the documents + that the product carries the manufacturer + importer identification information (Article 10(2)); ensure storage / transport conditions do not jeopardise compliance with Annex I (Article 10(3)); when product is found not in conformity take corrective measures (Article 10(5)).
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.