Not sure if this answers the question directly.
We were in the final stages of certifying a simulator to FNPT II standards, and found some 'holes' in the way the sim flew.
Rather than try to fix the problem (which was way outside our capability), we invoked the phraseology of the requirment that said something to the effect of 'for the training required'. We clearly stated the limitations of the device, and the maneuvers which were not considered to be part of the training.
This presupposes that those who use the sim get to read the certification reports, or that those who do the flight ops part of the sim approval read the engineering reports. But at least we could say 'this device is not to be used for xxx'.
(which was much better taught in the real aircraft anyway, due to the peripheral vision and propriocetive cues needed.)