Clarins Multi-Active Glow Serum
Everything behind the verdicts on this product: the rule that fired for each concern, the three answers and the documents they rest on, every study on the row with the date it was opened, and the versions of the tables that produced them. Nothing here is edited by hand; it is generated from the same records the verdicts are.
The scaleRecommendedGoodSupportingEarly evidenceNot for thisAvoidhow it works
Engine 5.2.0 · rules 0.5.1 · evidence table ev-2026.10-r231 · computed October 13, 2026 · how we decide · the evidence table · the anchors
for Hyperpigmentation
Glycolic Acid has trial-level evidence for hyperpigmentation but no guideline or regulatory standing yet — promising, short of a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has at least one trial behind it for the concern but no guideline or regulatory standing yet, and is present at a working level. Short of a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9p → Promising. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern; moderate or strong evidence dots on the carrier’s row.
q1 = plausible · q2 = adequate | plausible · supportive = false · strength = moderate | strong
Why this rule exists: 0.5.0: 'Unproven' beside three filled dots read as one question answered twice with opposite words (7,018 rows). The chip measures standing, the dots measure trial volume; where the row carries at least one RCT or a tier-2 source (moderate dots) and the active is present at a working level, the honest word is Promising. Unproven is reserved for plausible-standing rows with limited or weak evidence, or an under-dosed form. Same rank as Unproven — a bet either way; the dots order them.
Rule R9p decided 4,872 verdicts across the catalog; “Promising” is the verdict on 4,872 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 5–10%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — photosensitization
Cautions: a photosensitising active — use sun protection. - Evidence dots
- Moderate evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Treatment of Postinflammatory Hyperpigmentation With a Combination of Glycolic Acid Peels and a Topical Regimen in Dark-Skinned Patients: A Comparative Study — Dermatologic Surgery (2017), opened July 16, 2026
- Glycolic acid peels for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in black patients. A comparative study — Dermatologic Surgery (1997), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All hyperpigmentation products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Dark Spots
Glycolic Acid has early or mechanistic evidence for dark spots — a reasonable bet, not a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has early or mechanistic evidence only, or is present below a working level. A reasonable bet, not a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9 → Unproven. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern.
q1 = plausible · supportive = false
Why this rule exists: Plausible-tier actives alone do not earn a recommendation, and 'not for this' would overstate the case against them. 'Unproven' with the evidence dots lets the reader judge the bet (added 0.2.0 after the first shadow run put a 10% niacinamide serum at 'not for this' for hyperpigmentation). 0.5.0: the closing clause reads the other heroes — "nothing else here addresses it" only when every other active has a researched 'none' row; "not yet assessed" when that is the truth. Rows whose dots read moderate or better now reach R9p first.
Rule R9 decided 4,156 verdicts across the catalog; “Unproven” is the verdict on 4,156 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 5–10%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — photosensitization
Cautions: a photosensitising active — use sun protection. - Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Topical 8% glycolic acid and 8% L-lactic acid creams for the treatment of photodamaged skin. A double-blind vehicle-controlled clinical trial — Archives of Dermatology (1996), opened July 17, 2026
- Q-switched ruby laser application is safe and effective for the management of actinic lentigo (topical glycolic acid is not) — Acta Dermato-Venereologica (1996), opened July 17, 2026
- Analytic assessment under ultraviolet light of actinic lentigines under bleaching treatment — Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2011), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All dark spots products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Dullness
Glycolic Acid is a reference standard by mechanism for dullness; this serum carries it high in the ingredient list.
A trial-supported active, or a reference standard by mechanism, at a working level; or a first-line active below its studied range.
- Rule
- R5 → Good choice. A supported active (trial-backed, or a reference standard by mechanism); declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level.
q1 = supported · q2 = adequate | plausible
Why this rule exists: Trial-supported or guideline-supported active, adequately or plausibly dosed.
Rule R5 decided 9,843 verdicts across the catalog; “Good choice” is the verdict on 10,340 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Supported — its mechanism is established (a reference standard, not a trial result)
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 4–10%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability
- Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Harry's Cosmeticology / Baran & Maibach Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology — humectant, emollient and occlusive classification — standard reference text
← Back to the verdict All dullness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Sun Damage
Glycolic Acid has trial-level evidence for sun damage but no guideline or regulatory standing yet — promising, short of a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has at least one trial behind it for the concern but no guideline or regulatory standing yet, and is present at a working level. Short of a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9p → Promising. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern; moderate or strong evidence dots on the carrier’s row.
q1 = plausible · q2 = adequate | plausible · supportive = false · strength = moderate | strong
Why this rule exists: 0.5.0: 'Unproven' beside three filled dots read as one question answered twice with opposite words (7,018 rows). The chip measures standing, the dots measure trial volume; where the row carries at least one RCT or a tier-2 source (moderate dots) and the active is present at a working level, the honest word is Promising. Unproven is reserved for plausible-standing rows with limited or weak evidence, or an under-dosed form. Same rank as Unproven — a bet either way; the dots order them.
Rule R9p decided 4,872 verdicts across the catalog; “Promising” is the verdict on 4,872 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 5–25%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — photosensitization
Cautions: a photosensitising active — use sun protection. - Evidence dots
- Moderate evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- A double-blind randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of a daily glycolic acid 5% formulation in the treatment of photoaging — Dermatologic Surgery (1998), opened July 17, 2026
- Effects of alpha-hydroxy acids on photoaged skin: a pilot clinical, histologic, and ultrastructural study — Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (1996), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All sun damage products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Rough Texture
Glycolic Acid is a reference standard by mechanism for rough texture; this serum carries it high in the ingredient list.
A trial-supported active, or a reference standard by mechanism, at a working level; or a first-line active below its studied range.
- Rule
- R5 → Good choice. A supported active (trial-backed, or a reference standard by mechanism); declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level.
q1 = supported · q2 = adequate | plausible
Why this rule exists: Trial-supported or guideline-supported active, adequately or plausibly dosed.
Rule R5 decided 9,843 verdicts across the catalog; “Good choice” is the verdict on 10,340 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Supported — its mechanism is established (a reference standard, not a trial result)
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 4–10%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability
- Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook — declared function — Personal Care Products Council
- Harry's Cosmeticology / Baran & Maibach Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology — humectant, emollient and occlusive classification — standard reference text
← Back to the verdict All rough texture products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Blackheads
Glycolic Acid has trial-level evidence for blackheads but no guideline or regulatory standing yet — promising, short of a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has at least one trial behind it for the concern but no guideline or regulatory standing yet, and is present at a working level. Short of a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9p → Promising. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern; moderate or strong evidence dots on the carrier’s row.
q1 = plausible · q2 = adequate | plausible · supportive = false · strength = moderate | strong
Why this rule exists: 0.5.0: 'Unproven' beside three filled dots read as one question answered twice with opposite words (7,018 rows). The chip measures standing, the dots measure trial volume; where the row carries at least one RCT or a tier-2 source (moderate dots) and the active is present at a working level, the honest word is Promising. Unproven is reserved for plausible-standing rows with limited or weak evidence, or an under-dosed form. Same rank as Unproven — a bet either way; the dots order them.
Rule R9p decided 4,872 verdicts across the catalog; “Promising” is the verdict on 4,872 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Glycolic Acid
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 5–10%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability
- Evidence dots
- Moderate evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Clinical evaluation of glycolic acid chemical peeling in patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, split-face comparative study — Dermatologic Surgery (2014), opened July 16, 2026
- Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials — BMJ Open — systematic review, NOT meta-analysed (heterogeneity); no GRADE (2018), opened July 16, 2026
- Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris — Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD clinical guideline, GRADE-based) — cited as evidence that glycolic acid appears in NONE of its 18 recommendations (2024), opened July 16, 2026
- The effect of physically applied alpha hydroxyl acids on the skin pore and comedone — International Journal of Cosmetic Science — EXCLUDED from rct_count: both arms received AHA (the randomised contrast is negative pressure, not the acid) (2015), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All blackheads products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
No category-job specification exists for this category yet, so there is no job reading.
- A photosensitising active — use sun protection
A verdict is Dermington’s assessment of how well a product’s ingredients fit a concern — never a claim about what the product treats. Every rule is public and the same for every product; a brand cannot buy a reading. How we decide · what has changed · disclaimer.