Receipt

Kinfield Sunglow SPF 35

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

Full protection

for Sun Damage

Broad-spectrum SPF 35 with zinc oxide, titanium dioxide: the protection sun damage calls for.

Broad-spectrum SPF 30 or higher with an adequate UVA filter (and iron oxides where visible light matters).

Rule
P1 → Full protection. An adequate UVA filter in the ingredient list; SPF 30 or higher; a concern not worsened by visible light.
uva = true · spf_band = 30+ · iron_oxides_needed = false
Why this rule exists: Photoprotection standing is regulatory (M020 / Annex VI filters; 21 CFR 201.327 attaches the early-skin-aging claim to tested broad-spectrum SPF 15+). SPF 30 is the AAD daily-use bar.
Rule P1 decided 2,280 verdicts across the catalog; “Full protection” is the verdict on 2,336 of 45,446. The full register.
Carrying active
Non-Nano Zinc Oxide
1 · Standing
First-line — a regulator recognises it for this use; its mechanism is established (a reference standard, not a trial result); trials support it
Document: § 201.327 Over-the-counter sunscreen drug products; required labeling based on effectiveness testing (US FDA — 21 CFR 201.327 (via Cornell Legal Information Institute)), opened July 27, 2026
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 20.3%
Studied range: 10–25%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact
3 · Tolerability
Standard tolerability
Evidence dots
Moderate evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 27, 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 sun damage products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

Unproven

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
Glycerin
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Plausible — 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 →

Avoid

for Sensitivity

This formula carries fragrance — the kind of thing reactive skin flags first.

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
F1 → Avoid. The formula carries a known trigger for the concern.
q3 = harsh
Why this rule exists: Sensitivity has no efficacy claim; the verdict is tolerability.
Rule F1 decided 605 verdicts across the catalog; “Avoid” is the verdict on 1,912 of 45,446. The full register.
Carrying active
Non-Nano Zinc Oxide
1 · Standing
Not assessed
No evidence row exists for this active and concern; it is in the research queue.
2 · Form
Plausible — declared at 20.3%
3 · Tolerability
Carries a trigger — fragrance load
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 sensitivity products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

Good choice

for Dehydration

Glycerin is a reference standard by mechanism for dehydration; this cream 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
Glycerin
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: 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
September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)

The studies and documents on the row

  • USP glycerin monograph / Fluhr et al., glycerol and the skin (review) — glycerin is the reference humectant, drawing and holding water in the stratum corneum — reference work

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

The category job
Does the job

as a sunscreen

Does what a sunscreen is for: UVA coverage, holds up in sunlight.

Rule
J2 → Does the job. The category-job reading is 65 or more.
Category job score over the measured features 65–85.
Measured from the label
UVA coverage, holds up in sunlight, kind to the skin wearing it
Not measurable from the label
pleasant enough to actually use
Tolerability
Standard tolerability

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)