If you look closely at skincare claims, you’ll notice that most fall into two categories — ingredient-level claims and formula-level claims.

Ingredient-level claims

These rely on studies conducted by the supplier of a specific active ingredient. The ingredient is tested under optimal conditions — correct pH, compatible base, right concentration, and stability controls. If a brand replicates those same conditions in the final formula, the ingredient is expected to perform as shown in supplier studies.

Examples of ingredient-level measured claims:

• “0.5% Retinol increased cell turnover by 35% in 8 weeks.”
• “Niacinamide at 5% reduced hyperpigmentation by 21% after 12 weeks.”

These statements describe measured changes observed under controlled lab conditions for that ingredient — not necessarily the same formulation you’re buying.

Formula-level claims

Formula-level testing assesses the complete finished product — exactly as it will reach consumers. This ensures that the final blend of actives, stabilizers, carriers, and textures performs as intended when used in real life.

Examples of full-formula measured claims:

• “Clinically proven to increase hydration by 72% after 4 hours.”
• “Wrinkle depth reduced by 18% after 8 weeks, measured via 3D imaging.”

Neither approach is inherently better; it depends on purpose. If you’re addressing one specific concern, ingredient-based testing may suffice. But for a multitasking daily routine, full-formula testing provides a clearer picture of how everything works together.

At Flout, we believe in building everyday hero products that address broad, long-term skin goals like hydration, barrier strength, radiance, and resilience while leaving room to supplement with focused treatments when needed.

You may also come across claims like “95% of users said their skin felt smoother,” or “9 out of 10 women agreed their complexion looked brighter.” These come from user-perception studies, an important but distinct form of testing.

In a perception study, participants use the product for a defined period and then self-report what they observe or feel. Feedback often relates to texture, comfort, fragrance, and visible or tactile improvements such as brightness or softness.

While valuable for understanding how enjoyable or perceivable benefits are in daily use, these results reflect subjective perception, not objective measurement. They capture how users feel their skin has changed, rather than quantifying that change using instruments or imaging.

Perception studies complement clinical testing, they highlight user experience. But they are not equivalent to ingredient-level or formula-level clinical data, which measure statistically significant changes under controlled conditions.

At Flout, we view perception testing as valuable for understanding sensorial and emotional responses. However, our performance claims are always based on measured outcomes — data verified by independent labs and dermatologist-supervised instrumentation.

At the most basic level are safety assessments, such as:
- Non-irritating or hypoallergenic status
- Toxin-free formulation
- Vegan or cruelty-free certification

Next come skin-health metrics measurable via instruments: hydration levels, barrier strength (via TEWL), elasticity, texture, fine lines, and brightness. Beyond these are concern-specific studies, such as acne, pigmentation, or melasma improvement.

Reliable testing is performed by an independent third-party laboratory and ideally reviewed or ratified by dermatologists.