Jan Marini Hyla3D HA Activating Complex
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
Hyaluronic Acid is a reference standard by mechanism for dryness; 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
- Sodium Hyaluronate
- 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
- 3 · Tolerability
- Gentle
- Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
- What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- October 13, 2026
The studies and documents on the row
- Effectiveness of topical hyaluronic acid of different molecular weights in xerosis cutis treatment in elderly: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. — Archives of Dermatological Research (Springer) — 36 nursing-home residents aged 60-80, Universitas Indonesia / Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital; investigator-initiated, no manufacturer authorship on the author list; registered NCT06178367. JOURNAL NOT IN source-tiers.json — recorded conservatively as tier 3 pending an operator registry decision (it is a PubMed-indexed specialty dermatology journal, arguably tier 2). (2024), opened October 13, 2026
- Final report of the safety assessment of hyaluronic acid, potassium hyaluronate, and sodium hyaluronate. — International Journal of Toxicology — Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel (industry-funded review body). Establishes the declared cosmetic FUNCTION (skin-conditioning agent, used up to 2%); it is a safety assessment and makes no efficacy finding for dryness. (2009), opened October 13, 2026
← Back to the verdict All dryness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Dehydration
Hyaluronic Acid is a reference standard by mechanism for dehydration; this serum carries it.
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
- Sodium Hyaluronate
- 1 · Standing
- Supported — its mechanism is established (a reference standard, not a trial result)
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 0.1%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 1 weeks - 3 · Tolerability
- Gentle
- 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
- Draelos ZD, Cosmetic Dermatology: Products and Procedures — hyaluronic acid classified as a humectant water-binding agent holding many times its weight in water — reference work
← Back to the verdict All dehydration products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Aging
Growth Factors (EGF) has trial-level evidence for aging 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
- Oligopeptide-1
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
- 3 · Tolerability
- Gentle
- 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
- Topical growth factor preparations for facial skin rejuvenation: A systematic review — Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2023), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All aging products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Dullness
Hyaluronic Acid has early or mechanistic evidence for dullness — 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
- Sodium Hyaluronate
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
- 3 · Tolerability
- Gentle
- 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
- October 9, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Benefits of topical hyaluronic acid for skin quality and signs of skin aging: From literature review to clinical evidence — Dermatologic Therapy (2022), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All dullness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
No category-job specification exists for this category yet, so there is no job reading.
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.