Two product types, two saved edits, or up to four actual products. A type score is not a formula score. What is missing stays missing.
Different jobs
Pressed powder compact
Pressed powder compact fits this profile by 35 points. Full-coverage foundation is not a worse object — it is being asked to do a job this profile did not ask for.
These fill different roles — base and setting — so the higher score is not a reason to drop the other. Compare them only if you were going to buy one of the two.
Long-wear full coverage is normally silicone plus a hard film-former. Once it sets it does not want to be re-blended.
Fit14
Tierhold
Film weight3
Minutes6
Upkeep2
VehicleSilicone-based
Setssets-hard
Wait after60s
Against
Gives more opacity than the desk's default assumes. You have not set a coverage.
Carries the heaviest film-cost class on this desk.
Evidence · signed weights (they add up to 14)
+50 · Neutral start — Every product type starts here. Above 50 the model has more reasons for it; below, more reasons against.
-23 · Coverage match — Delivers 85 against an assumed appetite of 30.
-12 · Film cost — Every unit of modeled opacity load costs points.
+4 · Sebum behavior — How this texture is modeled against combination skin — the desk's assumption, not your answer.
-4 · Claim-literacy caution — Do not add opacity for a skincare claim whose concentration or finished-product evidence has not been established.
-1 · Scale and rounding — Each weight is rounded to a whole point, and the score is held inside 0–100. This row is the difference, so the column adds up to the score the rest of the desk shows. It is not a reason for or against the product.
The order you apply things in, what each film is intended to do, and where the evidence is uncertain — argued long-form rather than scored. This is the reading behind the sequence this desk just gave you.