Welcome to SMF,
@jgs912 !
Don't make yourself crazy about that property number mumbo jumbo. The “hardness”, “conditioning” etc. numbers (just as helpers like INS) were invented by someone who had a specific conception of how
their soap should be. Without any idea what
you would like a soap bar to be. It's good to know when a recipe fulfills the “ideal” ranges, but it doesn't tell you how to reach them (i. e. which types of oils are interchangeable) or if you miss some important caveats. It's a somewhat decent
analytical toolkit, but of limited use for
synthesis (i. e. recipe design).
Most importantly, it doesn't reflect that there are different classes of oils, that have different degrees of flexibility to choose.
What the “bubbly” and “cleansing” numbers really want to tell you (in a very cumbersome and unintuitive way) is that there is some truth in the habit to use 5% castor oil and about 20% lauric oil (most often coconut or palm kernel oil).
This is kind of a constant through a solid majority of soap recipes. I. e. you
can't make much wrong with adhering to it. And then you don't have to care about lauric oils (read: count in their number into the “free choice of ingredients”)
In my experience, there are merely two other parameters to best keep an eye on: the “longevity” number that shouldn't fall below about 26, and the poly-unsaturated fatty acids (sum of linoleic and linolenic acid in the fatty acid profile) that should be well below 15%
to minimise DOS/rancidity risk.
Following these simple rules makes all other numbers (including iodine and INS) more or less fall in place magically! There is some redundancy hidden in the numbers (e. g. hardness:conditioning = sat:unsat number, i. e. hardness+conditioning=100).
Two parameters: that means that you should be fine with two extra oils – or even a single one if you choose a good one. Every extra oil makes the system “more or less” overdetermined, i. e. unnecessary
from the point of view of the property numbers/FA profile. There might be good reasons why you would want to use more than that. But this might also point you why you don't need to. All “butters” (tropical hard fats) for example, are (slightly simplified) a mix of 45–60% hard FAs (mostly stearic) and the rest oleic acid. Hence they are fully interchangeable, with some minor adjustment of an oleic oil (olive, HO sunflower, almond…). Judging just from the FA profile, the use of more than one butter is mere label appeal.
How many oils do I
have to use? Well, the
Basic Trinity recipe class (hugely popular among beginners and professionals likewise) bears the answer in its name already. With castor included, we are at four oils. Minus the “imperative” categories (castor, lauric oil), we have two. In the original Basic Trinity, that's olive and palm/lard/tallow. Representatives of the
oleic oil and
hard fat categories, respectively. You can
relatively freely decide which you choose from these, but it is rather the exception that you
need to choose more than one from either. (As an example for such an exception: you want to include rice bran oil (relatively high in linoleic acid), but don't want to collide with the PUFA limit, so you split the
soft oil budget into RBO and olive – see Basic Trinity: Tweak 2!)
Things only become more complicated if you want to achieve certain
non-soapy qualities (like cost/availability, ideological concerns about animal fats and/or palm oil and/or GMO, local sourcing, avoiding some allergenic oil, or just using up the remainders of some stuff you want to get rid of).