Receipt

Esfolio 3HA Clear 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

Promising

for Acne

Niacinamide has trial-level evidence for acne 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
Niacinamide & Botanical Oils
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 4–5%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks
3 · Tolerability
Standard tolerability — fragrance load, irritant load, fungal triggers
Cautions: fragrance; known irritants; fungal-acne triggers.
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

← Back to the verdict All acne products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

Avoid

for Rosacea

This formula carries fragrance — a known trigger for rosacea — so it is not a fit however good its actives are.

The formula carries a known trigger for the concern — fragrance for rosacea, comedogenic esters for acne, fungal triggers for fungal acne — which decides the verdict before any efficacy question.

Rule
R1 → Avoid. The formula carries a known trigger for the concern.
q3 = harsh
Why this rule exists: Safety outranks praise (MASTER-PLAN §1.7). A condition-weighted trigger (multiplier ≥ 2 in condition-fit-matrix) decides the verdict before any efficacy question.
Rule R1 decided 1,307 verdicts across the catalog; “Avoid” is the verdict on 1,912 of 45,446. The full register.
Carrying active
Centella Asiatica Extract
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 14.25%
3 · Tolerability
Carries a trigger — fragrance load
Cautions: known irritants; a declarable fragrance allergen; 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

← Back to the verdict All rosacea products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

Promising

for Excess Oiliness

Niacinamide has trial-level evidence for excess oiliness 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
Niacinamide & Botanical Oils
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 2%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 weeks
3 · Tolerability
Standard tolerability — fungal triggers
Cautions: fungal-acne triggers.
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

← Back to the verdict All excess oiliness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

The category job

No category-job specification exists for this category yet, so there is no job reading.

In the research queue

Listed for Rough Texture, Dullness, with no verdict: the actives here have no evidence row for those concerns yet. That is a gap in our table, not a mark against the product.

  • Rough Texture: The actives here (Centella Asiatica, Niacinamide, Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHA), Tea Tree Oil) are in the research queue for rough texture; no verdict until their rows are written.
  • Dullness: The actives here (Centella Asiatica, Niacinamide, Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHA), Tea Tree Oil) are in the research queue for dullness; no verdict until their rows are written.
Formula flags read from the ingredient list
  • Fragrance
  • Known irritants
  • Fungal-acne triggers
  • A declarable fragrance allergen
  • 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.

Next on the Your first visit route · stop 3 of 4Ask your questionThe Library · Questions & answers
Take the whole Your first visit tour (4 stops)