Clear Canvas serum: two Revolution codes and one repeated study summary

The exact product is Revolution Skin Clear Canvas 5% Niacinamide & 2% Salicylic Acid Clarifying Serum, with code 1833264. It appears on a manufacturer storefront displaying prices in pounds. That is the scope of the reviewed listing; it does not establish a US acne-label record or the formula of every Revolution salicylic product. Clear Canvas page.

The manufacturer describes a gentle exfoliating serum aimed at blemishes, oiliness and uneven tone. Exact naming prevents these claims from migrating to another format. The product-version guide provides useful context for keeping an identifier attached to its source. A product code locates a record without establishing which version a particular retailer or customer possesses.

The page separately states 5% niacinamide and 2% salicylic acid. Its complete list also names water, glycerin, propanediol, panthenol and other ingredients. Reading the list alongside the headline preserves the whole manufacturer declaration instead of reducing the serum to two numbers. Specifications and ingredients.

These are advertised quantities, not results of an assay conducted for this review. They do not supply the concentrations of every listed component or a direct comparison with another finished product. The matching-percentage guide explains that limitation. A familiar active and a printed percentage can be documented while questions about the complete preparation and its tested outcomes remain open.

The second official page names Revolution Skincare Salicylic Acid & Niacinamide Serum and gives code 1617857. Its declaration places disodium EDTA before sodium hydroxide; Clear Canvas lists those two in the opposite order. That observation is worth retaining without treating it as a verified chronology of reformulation. Other serum code and Clear Canvas declaration.

The documents do not identify which page came first, whether every batch differs or whether the two listings describe the same supplied item. The Mario Badescu record review is another place to examine exact product identification. Here, the unresolved relationship should remain attached to the two codes rather than be replaced with a hybrid ingredient list.

The Clear Canvas summary says testing involved 52 consumers over four weeks. It reports 92% for immediate hydration, 92% for less redness and clearer-looking skin after four weeks, and 92% for more even texture after four weeks. It also gives 98% for no irritation or dryness and 96% for recommending the product. Reported outcomes.

The other serum page repeats these results and the same group description. That does not establish a second independent trial. Repeated summary. The full report, control and question wording were not available in the reviewed material. Each figure should remain linked to its reported endpoint, without treating recommendation, comfort, hydration and clearer appearance as equivalent clinical measures.

The promotional list advertises more even texture in two weeks, while the footnote describes testing over four weeks and the numerical texture result is reported at four weeks. These statements should be shown together. The reviewed wording does not identify a separate two-week participant group or explain the earlier assessment. Headline and footnote.

The page also mentions reduced pore appearance, but its listed numerical outcomes do not include a separate pore percentage. That is a limit on this specific summary, not proof that no further evidence exists anywhere. The useful question concerns the measurements and time points behind the headline. It is not a reason to invent a deadline for an individual’s skin.

The pages use fragrance-free, alcohol-free, non-comedogenic and dermatologically tested language. They also promote clarification without irritation and a calming effect. These describe the manufacturer’s positioning; the consumer comfort percentage remains a reported group result rather than a guarantee for every reader. Brand descriptors.

A complete ingredient list is useful for identifying the product, but it cannot predict a personal reaction from the presence or absence of one component. The Stridex label review offers a separate discussion of comfort wording and documented warnings. This navigation is not advice to substitute products, compare personal tolerability or construct a routine from different manufacturers’ pages.

The strongest remaining document question is which product code and declaration describe the actual item under consideration. The second question concerns the study methods behind the repeated summary and the two-week headline. Neither can be settled by selecting whichever page gives the more attractive wording. Clear Canvas record and alternate record.

Price and availability would require their own current, selected-item record; no transaction was tested. The cream-and-alternatives comparison helps keep format, quantity and evidence separate when comparing offers. Clearer documentation can make a product question answerable without asserting a manufacturing history, a clinical advantage or an expected result for someone who was not part of the reported group.