Sanoflore Magnifica Serum
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 Blackheads
Lactic Acid has early or mechanistic evidence for blackheads — 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
- Dual-Acid Exfoliation
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 5–10%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 4 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
- The effect of physically applied alpha hydroxyl acids on the skin pore and comedone — International Journal of Cosmetic Science (2015), opened July 17, 2026
- Long term topical application of lactic acid/lactate lotion as a preventive treatment for acne vulgaris — Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (2002), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All blackheads products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Rough Texture
Lactic Acid is a reference standard by mechanism for rough texture; 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
- Dual-Acid Exfoliation
- 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: 5–12%, from the trials on the row; needs leave-on contact; judge it after about 4 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
- International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook — declared function — Personal Care Products Council
- Harry's Cosmeticology / Baran & Maibach Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology — humectant, emollient and occlusive classification — standard reference text
← Back to the verdict All rough texture products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Post-Procedure
This formula carries fragrance, drying alcohol, known irritants — a known trigger for post procedure — so it is not a fit however good its actives are.
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
- R1 → Avoid. The formula carries a known trigger for the concern.
q3 = harsh
Why this rule exists: Safety outranks praise (MASTER-PLAN §1.7). A condition-weighted trigger (multiplier ≥ 2 in condition-fit-matrix) decides the verdict before any efficacy question.
Rule R1 decided 1,307 verdicts across the catalog; “Avoid” is the verdict on 1,912 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Sodium Hyaluronate
- 1 · Standing
- Not assessed
No evidence row exists for this active and concern; it is in the research queue. - 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
- 3 · Tolerability
- Carries a trigger — fragrance load, drying alcohol, irritant load
Cautions: a photosensitising active — use sun protection. - 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 post-procedure 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 Acne, Large Pores, 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.
- Acne: The actives here (Hyaluronic Acid, Adenosine, Botanical Extracts, Essential Oils) are in the research queue for acne; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Large Pores: The actives here (Hyaluronic Acid, Adenosine, Botanical Extracts, Essential Oils) are in the research queue for large pores; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Excess Oiliness: The actives here (Hyaluronic Acid, Adenosine, Botanical Extracts, Essential Oils) are in the research queue for excess oiliness; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Fragrance
- Known irritants
- A photosensitising active — use sun protection
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.