When we tell you to pause a glycolic acid toner 24 hours before a radiofrequency session, or that a facial cupping treatment needs a 6-hour gap before the same device, there is a specific reason behind each of those verdicts. This page explains how our compatibility guidance is built, where it comes from, how it is checked by a human before it reaches you, and where its limits are.
Our devices use different underlying technologies — radiofrequency, intense pulsed light, LED photobiomodulation, sonic vibration, and microcurrent — and the compatibility rules for each one reflect those differences. The same ingredient that needs a timing window with one device may be completely unrestricted with another. The same product format that is incompatible with one technology may be actively recommended for another.
This is why the checker always asks which device you are checking against, and why results are never shared across devices. A verdict for your RF device does not carry over to your LED device, even if both are SkinovationLab products. Every result you see is specific to the device and the mode you selected.
Every compatibility rule on SkinovationLab is derived from one or more of the following sources. We track exactly where each piece of guidance originated and display that provenance alongside the result so you can judge the strength of the evidence yourself.
Rules stated verbatim in our official device manuals and user guides. These are the specifications we wrote for our devices and they always take precedence over everything else. If the manual says avoid, we say avoid — no interpretation required.
Our manual states a rule; the platform adds the scientific mechanism behind it — explaining why a certain ingredient type causes the issue, so the guidance makes sense rather than just being a number to follow. These rules are higher-confidence than clinical extrapolations because they are anchored to our own specifications.
Where our device specifications are silent on a specific interaction, we apply established clinical and scientific practice. For example, the standard two-week recovery period after a professional chemical peel before resuming RF or IPL energy is well-established in dermatology, even if no device manual states it explicitly.
Additional safety guidance we add where neither our manuals nor established clinical practice provides a clear rule — for example, general cautions around certain medications or skin conditions. These are always clearly labelled in the interface so you know they are broader advisory guidance, not a device-specific instruction.
Every rule you see carries one of these four labels. Rules derived from our device manuals are our highest priority for human review and are the first to be approved. Platform precautions go through the same review process but are always distinguished from manual-derived guidance in the interface.
Checking a product against a device is not a single lookup. Our checker applies a layered set of rules in a fixed order. A rule at an earlier layer always wins over a later one — it cannot be overridden by anything that comes after it. This precedence is intentional: it ensures that hard safety rules cannot be softened by ingredient concentration context or user profile settings.
Absolute conditions set out in our device guidelines. These include active skin conditions such as open wounds, eczema flare-ups, and active inflammation; recent sunburn; the use of certain medications; and specific health conditions such as pregnancy or implanted electronic devices. These always block use regardless of what any skincare product contains — no other rule can override them.
Several of our devices operate in multiple modes, each with its own rule set. A product that is compatible in one mode may need a timing restriction in another — or may be ideal in one mode and require caution in another. Rules are always evaluated against the specific mode you selected, not the device as a whole.
Rules that apply to categories of ingredients — AHAs, retinoids, oils, silicones, UV filters, photosensitising compounds, ionic actives, occlusives, and others. The verdict and any timing window depend on how that ingredient class interacts with the specific device technology. The same ingredient class can have a different window, or no restriction at all, depending on which device and mode you are checking against.
The same ingredient does not always carry the same risk in every product. Three things affect how an ingredient is evaluated within a specific formula: the product type (rinse-off cleanser vs leave-on serum vs face oil), the ingredient's position in the full ingredient list as a proxy for concentration, and the delivery system. A formulation modifier can reduce a verdict — for example from Avoid to Caution — but cannot make a flagged ingredient appear safe if the underlying class rule is strong.
If you have set conditions, sensitivities, or other factors in your profile — such as rosacea, a compromised skin barrier, active acne, or skin tone — these are applied on top of the ingredient rules. Profile modifiers can add cautions or strengthen verdicts, but like formulation modifiers, they cannot remove a restriction that exists at an earlier layer.
Every result in the checker follows the same structure — a verdict, a trust label, three phase blocks, a session timing bar, and where relevant, a breakdown of the specific ingredients or mechanism involved. Here are two real examples of the kind of result you will see.
Example 1 — Checking a product
A glycolic acid toning solution searched against an RF device. The checker identifies two exfoliant actives, applies the ingredient class rules, and produces a timing result for the product as a whole.
Example 2 — Checking a treatment
Facial cupping searched against the same RF device. The result reflects how a physical treatment — not a product — interacts with a device session, including the heightened sensitivity it can cause.
Every result in the checker follows this same format, whether you are checking a skincare product, a facial treatment, or a standalone ingredient. The three phases — Before, During, After — always mean the same thing.
A countdown ending at the exact moment your session starts. A 24-hour window means: if your session is at 7pm, do not apply this product after 7pm the previous evening. The restriction is about skin exposure time, not calendar days.
This refers only to the session itself — typically 20–30 minutes depending on the device. It does not mean the entire day. Treatments can never be performed at the same time as a device session, regardless of any timing windows.
Some device technologies temporarily increase skin permeability or heighten sensitivity. In that window, an ingredient or treatment that is ordinarily fine may have a stronger-than-expected effect. Wait until the stated time has passed.
Not every check produces a timing window. Many products and treatments are fully compatible with a device session — no restriction before, a simple cleanse-and-prepare protocol during, and no restriction after. Where no rule exists yet for a specific combination, the checker will tell you that clearly rather than showing a guess.
A flagged ingredient does not automatically mean a flagged product. And a result with one device tells you nothing about the same product used with a different device. The checker accounts for several factors beyond the ingredient name, which is why two products containing the same active can receive different verdicts.
Every compatibility rule on SkinovationLab goes through a human review stage before it is published. Our reviewers check each rule against our device manuals and clinical guidelines, assess whether the evidence is sufficient to approve it, and can mark rules as uncertain or disputed rather than forcing a premature approval.
The two labels you may see in the checker reflect where a rule sits in that process:
This rule has been reviewed and approved by a SkinovationLab reviewer against our device specifications and clinical guidelines. The reviewer was confident enough in the evidence to approve it for publication. It reflects our current best understanding of this specific interaction.
This rule has been derived from our device specifications and established ingredient science. Its logic is sound and it is grounded in credible sources — but it has not yet been individually reviewed and approved by a named SkinovationLab reviewer. It is awaiting its turn in our review queue. We surface these rules because withholding them entirely would leave too many gaps in coverage, but we label them clearly so you always know their status.
Rules that our reviewers mark as uncertain or disputed are never shown — you will see "No rule yet" rather than guidance we do not have sufficient confidence in. We would rather acknowledge a gap than fill it with something we cannot stand behind.
Being transparent about limits is part of being trustworthy. Our compatibility guidance is grounded in ingredient science, device physics, and clinical practice — but there are things it genuinely cannot account for, and it is important to be clear about what they are.