Josh Rosebrook Active Enzyme Exfoliator
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 Dullness
Glycerin 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
- Honey + Glycerin
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 2–20%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 1 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
- October 9, 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 →
No category-job specification exists for this category yet, so there is no job reading.
Listed for Rough Texture, Blackheads, Excess Oiliness, 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 (Glycerin, Papain (Papaya Enzyme), Physical Exfoliants, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for rough texture; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Blackheads: The actives here (Glycerin, Papain (Papaya Enzyme), Physical Exfoliants, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for blackheads; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Excess Oiliness: The actives here (Glycerin, Papain (Papaya Enzyme), Physical Exfoliants, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for excess oiliness; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Fungal-acne triggers
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.