01 · Evidence context
What the rating actually records
The range is useful precisely because it exposes uncertainty: different commercial samples did not behave identically in the historical screen. It should not be collapsed into a single universal number for all jojoba oils.
The number is retained as a historical observation. The site does not convert it into a current clinical probability or a complete-product grade.
02 · Formulation context
Why the complete formula can differ
Modern labels may use Simmondsia Chinensis Seed Oil. Even when that reviewed name is matched, refining, supplier, concentration, oxidation, and the rest of the formulation are not visible from the INCI list alone.
03 · Practical takeaway
How to use this result proportionately
If a jojoba-containing product works for you, this range alone is not a reason to discard it. If you suspect a pattern, compare one product change at a time and keep other routine variables stable.
If you compare products, change one routine variable at a time and use the label from the product currently in hand.
04 · Primary source
Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products
Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 40, 321-333 · Primary rabbit-ear screening study
Ingredients were generally tested at 10% in a rabbit-ear model. The paper calls the assay extremely sensitive, reports source and vehicle effects, and says the survey is not definitive or a substitute for finished-formula and human evidence.
Open source record ↗