I thought Right to repair is about disclosing documentation for a device and allowing 3rd parties the ability to buy replacement parts and not about requiring vendors to design their products in a certain way.

If a company decides to solder tiny surface mount components onto a board and put the device together with glue, that’s fine. Consumers can find a technician with a putty knife and micro soldering station. If the math works out and the business makes sense, the repair technician makes a profit and the consumer has more options.

If the company makes an exclusive agreement with a parts vendor to only sell to them, that’s anti-competitive. The consumer is forced to get repair services from the company. Right to repair says these agreements should be illegal, 3rd parties should be able to buy components. That’s not regulation that replaces consumer choice with state choice.

Certainly there are issues with device serialization, a vendor can make a device brick it’s self if you try to replace a component. There may be security reasons to do this, but in a lot of cases (like one wheel) it is meant to prevent the consumer from maintaining their device. Requiring documentation, schematics, and update procedures would disincentivize companies from making anti-consumer design choices.

That's what would happen if this is done in some small market, like let's say Qatar. With large markets the situation is rather different, since it is so essential for the companies to sell in these markets. Do you think Apple would no longer sell iPhones because of the USB C law or right to repair laws? Also, some of these laws are aimed at the externalities caused by these corporations, such as e-waste and computing disenfranchisement (well, at least partly). I am not generally supportive of governement regulation as solutions to our problems, but when the adversaries are as resourceful as Apple or Microsoft, the tradeoffs are different and we have no other way to realisticallt fix these issues.