Fresh Seaberry Moisturizing Face Oil
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 Dryness
Nothing here targets dryness directly; occlusive emollience is the recognised companion to treating it, and this oil does that without known triggers.
Nothing here targets the concern directly, but the product’s job — barrier care, gentle cleansing, photoprotection — is the recognised companion to treating it. Rinse-off products carrying leave-on actives land here too.
- Rule
- R8 → Supporting role. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only or an active researched for the concern and found wanting or an active with no evidence row for the concern yet; the product’s category job is a recognised companion to treating the concern.
q1 = plausible | none | not-assessed · supportive = true
Why this rule exists: The category's job (barrier care, humectant hydration, gentle cleansing, photoprotection) is the documented supportive role for this concern. This is the honest verdict for a moisturizer on an acne page.
Rule R8 decided 3,793 verdicts across the catalog; “Supporting role” is the verdict on 7,796 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Camellia Seed Oil
- 1 · Standing
- Not assessed
No evidence row exists for this active and concern; it is in the research queue. - 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
- 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — fragrance load
Cautions: fragrance. - Evidence dots
- Not from a trial row
- 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)
← Back to the verdict All dryness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Aging
Vitamin E has early or mechanistic evidence for aging — 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
- Vitamin E & Vitamin C
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 1%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact - 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
- Nanostructured Lipid Carrier Based Gel Containing α-Tocopherol and α-Tocopheryl Acetate for Synergistic Cutaneous Antiaging Efficacy — Scientific Reports (2025), opened July 16, 2026
- Efficacy of a topical serum containing L-ascorbic acid, neohesperidin, pycnogenol, tocopherol, and hyaluronic acid in relation to skin aging signs — Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2022), opened July 16, 2026
- A serum containing vitamins C & E and a matrix-repair tripeptide reduces facial signs of aging as evidenced by Primos® analysis and frequently repeated self-assessments — Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2020), opened July 16, 2026
- Vitamin E in dermatology — Clinical Dermatology (2026), opened July 16, 2026
- Effects of tocotrienol on aging skin: A systematic review — Frontiers in Pharmacology (2022), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All aging products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
Not judged as a oil: fatty-acid profile, seals moisture, resists going rancid cannot yet be measured from the ingredient list (only pore and malassezia risk can).
Listed for Dehydration, 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.
- Dehydration: The actives here (Camellia (Tsubaki) Oil, Grape Seed, Sea Buckthorn, Vitamin E) are in the research queue for dehydration; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Dullness: The actives here (Camellia (Tsubaki) Oil, Grape Seed, Sea Buckthorn, Vitamin E) are in the research queue for dullness; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Fragrance
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.