Receipt

PCA Skin Clearskin

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

Supporting role

for Acne

Niacinamide has early evidence for acne, and barrier care alongside acne treatment is the recognised companion to treating it — a reasonable supporting choice, short of a recommendation.

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
R8a → Supporting role. 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 a recognised companion to treating the concern.
q1 = plausible · q2 = adequate | plausible · supportive = true
Why this rule exists: A plausible-tier active in a category with a supportive job: the sentence names the active instead of saying nothing targets the concern (the AmLactin / CeraVe SA case for keratosis pilaris, where no guideline and single trials leave the keratolytics at early evidence).
Rule R8a decided 1,509 verdicts across the catalog; “Supporting role” is the verdict on 7,796 of 45,446. The full register.
Carrying active
Niacinamide
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 4%
Studied range: 4–5%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 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

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

Promising

for Excess Oiliness

Niacinamide has trial-level evidence for excess oiliness 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
Niacinamide
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 4%
Studied range: 2%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 8 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

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

Good choice

for Hyperpigmentation

Niacinamide is a trial-supported active for hyperpigmentation; this cream carries it at 4%.

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
Niacinamide
1 · Standing
Supported — trials support it
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 4%
3 · Tolerability
Gentle
Evidence dots
Moderate evidence
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 hyperpigmentation products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →

Unproven

for Dark Spots

Niacinamide 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
Niacinamide
1 · Standing
Plausible — trials support it
2 · Form
Adequate — declared at 4%
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 9, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)

The studies and documents on the row

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

Good choice

for Sensitivity

No fragrance, drying alcohol, declarable allergens or sensitising preservatives in this cream — the profile sensitive skin looks for.

For sensitivity only: no fragrance, drying alcohol, declarable allergens or sensitising preservatives in the formula.

Rule
F2 → Good choice. The formula carries no trigger and no caution for the concern.
q3 = gentle
Why this rule exists: Gentle = no weighted deduction fired and fit ≥ 90.
Rule F2 decided 1,955 verdicts across the catalog; “Good choice” is the verdict on 1,955 of 45,446. The full register.
Carrying active
Niacinamide
1 · Standing
Not assessed
No evidence row exists for this active and concern; it is in the research queue.
2 · Form
Plausible — declared at 4%
3 · Tolerability
Gentle
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 →

The category job
Falls short

as a moisturizer

Judged as a moisturizer, it comes up short on: seals moisture in, supplies barrier lipids.

Rule
J3 → Falls short. Otherwise — when no earlier rule in this group matched.
Category job score below 65 over the features that can be measured from the label (5.1.0: unmeasured features no longer enter at a prior; when under half the spec's weight is measurable there is no job verdict). The sentence names the criterion missed, never 'its basics'.
Measured from the label
draws in water, softens and smooths, seals moisture in, supplies barrier lipids, right weight for the job
Tolerability
Gentle

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)