They signalled earlier that they are not going to align themselves with EU regulatory apparatus - this was to indicate to the EU that they were not going for the 'tight integration' approach, which is important because it was assumed by many this would be the UK position.
The UK is seeking to have an independent regulatory system, obviously, this means many things vis-a-vis relationships with the EU. Many products will naturally have to comply with regulations, just as any UK company selling kit in the US or Brazil has to align their products with those regimes.
But in reality, obviously, this will evolve given any specific advantages that might present themselves.
But it's also impossible to tell what is a 'negotiating posture' vs. what is their real, intended posture, and that's very much on purpose.
My bet is that the end result will be something like NAFTA/USMCA.
I imagine most companies will end up setting up EU-domiciled subsidiaries to minimise barriers, but who knows ultimately!
In the next 12 months, the public won’t be able to believe a single word coming from government that might involve (even tangentially) trade negotiations.
It's too disturbing to contemplate what the state of the establishment, civil service, judiciary and all the other checks and balances will be at the end of five years.