Development Scenarios

Illustrative Scenario: a Barrier Repair Serum

Anonymised scenario 01

A barrier serum with a defensible claim

An anonymised ODM brief of a kind that recurs in development work: a pharmacy-channel claim that has to survive technical review.

The brief: a fragrance-free barrier serum for sensitive skin, with a hydration claim that would survive a retailer’s technical review, at a first run of 3,000 units and a shelf life of at least 24 months.

Texture and finish are judged on the locked formula, not on the brief

14 weeksBrief to approved samples

3,000First production run (units)

2Formulation iterations before lock

The constraint

The founder wanted a short INCI list and no fragrance, but the original humectant system left a tacky finish that testers rejected. A retailer also required the hydration claim to be supported by a measured test rather than an ingredient story.

What we changed

We rebuilt the humectant blend around a lower molecular weight hyaluronic acid and glycerin ratio, swapped one emollient to remove the tack, and commissioned a corneometry study on the locked formula.

The compliance route

The UK Responsible Person reviewed the Product Information File, the safety assessor signed the CPSR against the final formula and the SCPN was submitted before the first production batch was released.

Stage	Duration	Owner
Formula and sample lock	6 weeks	Development team
Stability, microbiology and claim test	5 weeks	Accredited laboratory
PIF, CPSR and SCPN	3 weeks	Responsible Person and safety assessor

What the scenario shows

A claim is only as good as the test behind it. The route runs from a written brief through evidence generation to a dossier a technical buyer can assess — in that order.

What this does not imply

We did not manufacture the product or sign the safety assessment. The partner site, the accredited laboratory and the named Responsible Person each remain accountable for their own evidence.

Where this sits in a real project

A claim is tested on the formula that will actually be filled, not on a concept. The bench work behind that decision is described under formulation development, and the evidence that supports the wording is covered in making cosmetic claims that survive scrutiny. The file a technical buyer will ask for is set out in the UK cosmetics compliance checklist, while quality and standards explains who signs each document. If you are still deciding whether the product is viable, start with a feasibility review.

Questions we are asked

Why can a claim not be written from the ingredient list?

Because the claim has to describe the finished product as tested. An ingredient story is not a measured effect; a corneometry study on the locked formula is evidence a retailer’s technical team can assess.

Who signs the Cosmetic Product Safety Report?

An independent, appropriately qualified safety assessor signs the CPSR. We coordinate the work and assemble the Product Information File; we do not present ourselves as the assessor.

Does the Responsible Person have to be based in Great Britain?

Yes. A GB-established Responsible Person must be appointed for products placed on the Great Britain market. We coordinate that appointment; we are not ourselves GB-established.

Similar project

Have a formula and a launch date?

Send us the brief and we will tell you, in writing, what has to happen before the first batch.

Request a review Back to selected work