IEC/EN 62638: Is Basic Safeguard Needed for PS2 Circuits Below 70W and No PIS?

If there is max 70W watt available to a product, then it is a PS2 circuit and a basic safeguard is needed for the cause of protecting against electrical fire for an ordinary person, according to "4.3.2.2 Safeguards between a class 2 energy source and an ordinary person".
In clause "0.7.2 Models for protection against electrically-caused fire", the requirement for "basic safeguard" is that the material does not ignite under "normal or abnormal operating conditions". I know that is not a problem for the product, as it does not heat up much at all during N and A operating conditions. (Actually neither under single fault conditions).
And in chapter 6,  "Electrically-caused fire", the product does not have an arcing PIS or resistive PIS, so clause 6 requires no safeguard. And for "single fault condition", in clause "6.4 Safeguards against fire under single fault conditions", the method "Control fire spread" using the method "No conductors and devices constitutes a PIS" should eliminate the use of any safeguard for this clause.
Does this hold up? Does this mean that there is no requirement for the enclosure at all? The enclosure could just be anything, like an easy ignitable cloth to take it to the extreme? 
If there are no reqirements, then consequently impact tests "4.4.4 Safeguard robustness" will be N/A.

70W at 230VAC is more than enough to kill many times over. 70W at 3V is enough to cause  considerable damage at the currents involved.When testing under single fault conditions, you have to consider what happens to other components, particularly where large currents or dangerous voltages are concerned. It all comes down to failure modes. Eventually a single fault may cascade through other components, resulting in temperatures much higher than would normally be encountered, or high voltages appearing where they should not.Consider an electric fence controller that runs off the mains. It operates at less than 70W, but imagine what might happen if a failure led to the mains  being distributed along a fence line. That is why you have to look at the consequences of a single fault cascading  through associated  adjacent components.We saw this on the forum recently, with respect to mains distribution boards, where fuses and MOVs interacted in a way they should not have, causing a failure mode that may well have resulted in a fire. Hence the need for flammability tests on the case material. The boards were rated to distribute much more than 70W, but the internal power dissipation should have been near zero since it was just a group of power sockets and a lead. I worked for a business, that along with many other things, did product testing (we saw many shocking things, but that's another story) during part of my working career, and found that product testing is akin to a fault finding mission where no actual fault has occurred.
I can't and won't comment specifically on your product, since I know nothing about it, and without being directly involved in its design, it would be dangerous for me to do so. One of the key engineering decisions to make if a product is being brought to market is that you talk to the testing engineers before and during all design phases, since materials and components that must meet international safety standards must be designed into those regions that must meet the standards right from the start.In the case of the standards, it is not either or, they have to be considered as a whole, you can't pick and choose, you have to make sure that every one of them is met, one may result in your cloth cover being ok, but others would not let it through. If the device is to be used just by yourself, then you could just cover it with a cloth, but whose to say that one day someone else won't come into contact with it, so good old common sense prevails.Cheers,Richard

I never mentioned 230VAC. It is actually 24VDC. But the voltage is of no interest for the clauses I was referring to. The rest of the standard I am already complying to, as the energy source all are class 1. It is only the power source that is class 2.

To add to Richard's advice above, consider a battery system in a comms station, say, composed of 2V lead-acid cells.  Now 2V will not give you a shock, right?  Correct. But what happens if you are holding a spanner, or have a metal watch strap on, and it contacts across those  2V  terminals.  They are capable of supplying hundreds or even thousands of amps.  So the spanner or watch strap will get red hot or hotter very quickly.  The consequences could be worse than a shock.  

The power source part of the EN62368 (misspelled in the header of the original post), does not mention voltage (except arcing PIS). Power source is concering fire, and that has a relation to power, not voltage or current.

The question was only concering power source, not electrical energy source at all.