The picture shows a non-functional fire protection. The fire retardant has been lacquered from the wood panel and covers the surface as a white powder. The panel must be replaced, causing unforeseen costs to the client. It is an expensive process that can be avoided if you do right from the start.
What happens when a construction contractor chooses fire-protected wood with a fire-retardant that does not have permanent properties? Well, it leaks large sums of money from the builder's wallet because all panels must be removed and replaced with new ones.
This is how it goes. The picture shows when a water-soluble and non-resistant fire retardant has been used in a panel and leached out. It lies on the wooden surface as a white powder-like substance. The panel has lost its important ability to prevent fire and destruction and must be replaced with a new one.
Who carries the responsibility for the fire safety of the building work? Yes, it's the builder. But since the construction contractor has not chosen the prescribed product but instead chooses a "equivalent product", which does not have documented properties, the construction contractor is hit by a financial setback and also risks indemnity.
Ironically, responsibility does not fall on the supplier of the defective and non-persistent wood against fire. Because it is the downstream user's responsibility to ensure the product's properties when deviations from the prescribed product have occurred.
It is undoubtedly cheaper to procure a prescribed product whose properties have been approved by an expert, than to gamble and listen to praise from a supplier who cannot demonstrate a certified documentation from an independent third party, just to save a few dollars.