High marks within the PC lineup for pricepoint-to-size ratio, and for delivering as a nighttime moisturizer/emollient/occlusive. The five-star rating is for performance within the PC product range. The rating would drop to three stars when measured against comparables in the broader external market. My sense of this product's positioning is that of a legacy product from a time period when the 'cosmetic cop' reputation was more robust. Contrary to branding, I find half-hearted literature citations to be of no contributing value when evaluating an untested product that bears little to no relation. The association with the references is--at best--speculative. What criteria am I judging this by? 1. Claims are not overstated. 2. Ingredient list is rational, straightforward, and not overburdened. 2. Minimized use of "sciencewashing." My suggestions for improvement are to remove any reference to gender from the package (it simply doesn't serve any purpose or convey important information to the consumer), increase the size available for purchase, and don't overburden a formula that is not broken. Should PC ever spin off a midrange segment under a sub-brand, this line would make a strong candidate against the industry giants, IMO. Moreso if formulas are ever-so-gently refined to contain the proper ingredient ratio that could legitimately claim lamellar crystal structure in efficacious amounts. .