Obagi 360 Retinol 0.5
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 Aging
Retinol is a trial-supported active for aging; this cream carries it at 0.5%.
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
- Retinol
- 1 · Standing
- Supported — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — declared at 0.5%
Studied range: 0.075–0.5%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 12 weeks - 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
- Comparative efficacy of topical interventions for facial photoaging: a network meta-analysis — Scientific Reports (2025), opened July 17, 2026
- Evidence for the Efficacy of Over-the-counter Vitamin A Cosmetic Products in the Improvement of Facial Skin Aging: A Systematic Review — Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology (2021), opened July 16, 2026
- Improvement of naturally aged skin with vitamin A (retinol) — Archives of Dermatology (2007), opened July 16, 2026
- Efficacy and Tolerability of Topical 0.1% Stabilized Bioactive Retinol for Photoaging: A Vehicle-Controlled Integrated Analysis — Journal of Drugs in Dermatology (2024), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All aging products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Hyperpigmentation
Retinol has trial-level evidence for hyperpigmentation 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
- Retinol
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — declared at 0.5%
Studied range: 0.1–1%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 12 weeks - 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
- Prospective, randomized, double-blind assessment of topical bakuchiol and retinol for facial photoageing — British Journal of Dermatology (2019), opened July 16, 2026
- Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation: A systematic review of treatment outcomes — Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (2024), opened July 16, 2026
- A stabilized 0.1% retinol facial moisturizer improves the appearance of photodamaged skin in an eight-week, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study — Journal of Drugs in Dermatology (2009), opened July 17, 2026
- Treatment of facial photodamage using a novel retinol formulation — Journal of Drugs in Dermatology (2013), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All hyperpigmentation 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
- Plausible — 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 →
for Acne
Retinol 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
- Retinol
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — declared at 0.5%
Studied range: 0.2%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 12 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
- Comparison of clinical efficacies of sodium ascorbyl phosphate, retinol and their combination in acne treatment — International Journal of Cosmetic Science (2009), opened July 17, 2026
- A randomized controlled double-blinded split-face prospective clinical trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a novel 3-step routine compared to benzoyl peroxide for the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris — Archives of Dermatological Research (combination routine — does NOT isolate retinol) (2024), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All acne products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Dark Spots
Retinol has early or mechanistic evidence for dark spots — 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
- Retinol
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Adequate — declared at 0.5%
Studied range: 0.1–0.5%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 12 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
- Prospective, randomized, double-blind assessment of topical bakuchiol and retinol for facial photoageing — British Journal of Dermatology (cited to show its pigment endpoint is general 'hyperpigmentation', NOT discrete lentigines) (2019), opened July 17, 2026
- Treatment of Solar Lentigines: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials — Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2025), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All dark spots 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, with no verdict: the actives here have no evidence row for that concern yet. That is a gap in our table, not a mark against the product.
- Rough Texture: The actives here (Retinol, Hyaluronic Acid, Licorice Root Extract, Vitamin C) are in the research queue for rough texture; 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.