SOFINA iP Pore Clearing Gel Wash
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
The actives here have been researched for blackheads and the evidence does not support the claim.
The actives have been researched for this concern and the evidence does not support the claim.
- Rule
- R10 → Not for this. An active researched for the concern and found wanting; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern.
q1 = none · supportive = false
Why this rule exists: Researched and found wanting is a different sentence from unresearched (R11).
Rule R10 decided 489 verdicts across the catalog; “Not for this” is the verdict on 489 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Charcoal Powder
- 1 · Standing
- None
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
- 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — fungal triggers
Cautions: fungal-acne triggers. - 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)
The studies and documents on the row
- Charcoal: An ancient material with a new face — Clinics in Dermatology (2020), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All blackheads 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 Large Pores, Excess Oiliness, Rough Texture, Dullness, 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.
- Large Pores: The actives here (Trehalose, Kaolin Clay, Activated Charcoal, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for large pores; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Excess Oiliness: The actives here (Trehalose, Kaolin Clay, Activated Charcoal, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for excess oiliness; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Rough Texture: The actives here (Trehalose, Kaolin Clay, Activated Charcoal, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for rough texture; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Dullness: The actives here (Trehalose, Kaolin Clay, Activated Charcoal, Botanical Extracts) are in the research queue for dullness; 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.