The device is a depth system, not a speed setting.

Depth and rate are set separately, and conflating them is the most common misreading of an absorption device. The collar sets how far the needle travels. The intensity setting sets how often. Neither moves the other.

Three cartridges ship in the box: two PRO-5D Nano and one PRO-R Nano. They are different jobs, not a ranking. Both seat on the same device and both travel the same range.

The ampoule is released from the cartridge at the moment the needle meets skin. That is one movement. Needling first and applying afterwards is two.

The ampoule does not sit in a chamber and wait. It passes a neck on the way out.

The manufacturer's engineering document specifies a 50 µm orifice inside the cartridge, set 0.8 mm behind the needle tip. Every dose crosses it.

A neck that narrow meters the release. What leaves the tip is set by the geometry, not by how much you poured into your hand.

It also drops the pressure of the fluid as it accelerates through. A pressure drop across a constriction cools what passes it.

The document states that drop as 2.3 °C at the tip. It is a figure about the fluid, stated by the people who built the part.

It is not a figure about your skin. re:tones has measured neither one, and the row stays open in the ledger below.

The document goes on from there into what the cooling does on a face. This page stops at the fluid.

A needle diameter is easy to print and hard to hold. The figure is a manufacturing outcome before it is a specification.

Molded polymer needles have a floor. The same document puts it at about 70 to 100 µm, below which molding stops holding a consistent tip.

So the array is not molded. It is made the way semiconductor parts are made.

Photolithography, then deep reactive ion etching, in an ISO Class 5 cleanroom. Verification is by scanning electron microscope, in house.

The document also states how the diameter was chosen. A finite element study covered 14 diameters, from 3 µm to 120 µm, across more than 200 geometries.

The bottom of that range has a mechanical limit. Below about 5 µm the needle buckles under the force needed to enter.

The document gives a reason for the top of the range too. That reason is about sensation, and sensation is a Not claimed row here, so it is not repeated as one.

None of this is a result. A fabrication method says how a part is made and nothing else, and it is graded that way in the ledger below.

Every figure on this page is a claim, and it is printed with the thing it rests on. 8 µm and 15 µm for the two cartridge geometries. 0.5 to 1.5 mm of collar travel, set by hand rather than chosen from presets. Six intensity settings. 6,000 RPM. Each of those is a device specification, labeled as one, and listed again in the ledger below with its basis beside it.

It is much easier to write a phrase that sounds like a specification than to print one. Surgical grade stainless steel is the type of phrase we mean. It reads like an engineering term and it is not one. It names no alloy, no composition, no supplier and no lot, so nobody can check it and nobody can compare two products by it. It is not on this page, and neither are its relatives.

One grade on this page is new, and it is a lower one. The manufacturer's engineering document states how the array is made, what the tip geometry is, and what the cartridge nose does to the fluid. Those are facts about how a part is built, and they are graded as a manufacturer statement rather than as a measurement. That grade sits below a test report and above a phrase, and it is printed as what it is wherever it appears.

The rule costs us as much as it earns. Needle count per array, battery capacity, charge time and weight are not here, because the manufacturer has not supplied them and we are not going to estimate them into existence. The stroke rate at each of the six settings is missing for the same reason. Every one of them is listed under Not published rather than quietly left off, which is where a figure we do not have belongs.

What is absent is as deliberate as what is printed. How long a channel stays open, and how a session feels, are both left out because we have not measured either. This is a standard we set for ourselves rather than a comment on anyone else, and the ledger below marks the edge of it instead of hiding it.

Until now this device had no compliance file. It has one now. Four documents, and every number is printed below.

Three were issued by a testing laboratory. The fourth is a declaration we made ourselves, and it is labeled that way wherever it appears.

The documents cover two things. The first is electromagnetic compatibility, which is interference. What the device emits, and what it tolerates.

The second is restricted hazardous substances in the electronics. Lead, mercury, cadmium and the rest, against published limits.

That is the whole scope. Not one of them looked at skin. None measured absorption, depth, needle geometry, or anything on a face.

Three distinctions we will not blur. The FCC document is a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. That is not an FCC certification, and there is no FCC ID.

The CE declaration is against the EMC Directive. It is not CE medical device marking. This is a cosmetic device.

The Korean document is a self-declaration under the Radio Waves Act. We declared it. No regulator tested it and no regulator signed it.

So none of this is a statement about your skin. Skin contact safety is biocompatibility, and biocompatibility is not in this file.

The file also settles something this site had left vague. The device and the ampoules come from two different manufacturers in South Korea, each building to re:tones specification.

The documents name model INSKIN-M1 and the trade mark inSkin Cell, not re:tones. That is ordinary for a device built to a specification. Both identifiers are printed here, because a certificate number you cannot match to a product proves nothing.