ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 26538570 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Inconclusive

Signals are mixed or weak. We can't tell with confidence — context, source, and your own judgement matter here.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 41/100

Analysed Specimen

Original analysed image
Forensic suspicion heatmap
OriginalHeatmap
POS55/100
No flagged regions

Heads up — 4 things to know

Why this analysis might be off

We highlight every disagreement and unusual signal we found so you can judge for yourself. Stronger warnings come first; informational notes are at the bottom.

Just below the AI threshold

Note

The score (58/100) is right at the boundary between inconclusive and AI (60). A single signal flip could swing the verdict — treat this as suggestive rather than definitive.

No metadata at all

AI evidence

The file has no EXIF, XMP, IPTC, or ICC metadata. This is common for social-media re-uploads and for many generator outputs — real camera files almost always carry an ICC profile.

Upsampling artifacts in the frequency domain

AI evidence

FFT analysis found strong upsampling patterns — a fingerprint of diffusion-model VAE decoders (latent → pixel-space upscale).

No ICC color profile

AI evidence

The image does not embed an ICC color profile. Real camera files almost always carry sRGB or Adobe RGB profiles — a missing profile is often a sign of generator output or re-encoded media.

Origin Check

Trace this image elsewhere

Cross-reference the source against major reverse-image services. Each link opens in a new tab with the image URL preloaded — ZONN.ai does not re-upload the image.

Why this verdict

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)flagged AI · 100/100

    BEiT-Large dual-head classifier trained on FLUX, Midjourney, and real photo corpora.

  • SigLIP AI Detectorflagged AI · 97/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

Model Agreement

48%

Variance across 6 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 16 detectors reviewed

What each detector saw

Each detector independently gave this imagea score from 0 (definitely real) to 100 (definitely AI). The score above is their weighted consensus — detectors with higher confidence count more. No single detector decides; you read the spread.

ML Models6 detectors · mean 67
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
SigLIP AI Detector
97
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
77
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
36
CommFor (4803 Generators)
40
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 46
▸ expand
Color Distribution
7
Frequency Analysis
73
Error Level Analysis
28
Noise Pattern
69
Pixel Analysis
45
Compression Quality
53
Edge Consistency
47
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

AI-typical dimensions
Dimensions
1024 × 1024 px
Aspect
1.000
File size
112.0 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.109

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.797
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.129
Power-law β
-3.53
Grid energy
0.305

Edge Consistency

CV 0.581
Cell 1: 4.8337Cell 2: 9.5534Cell 3: 9.2868Cell 4: 4.1957Cell 5: 9.3799Cell 6: 15.0334Cell 7: 12.5969Cell 8: 6.6686Cell 9: 9.2612Cell 10: 28.1277Cell 11: 31.1531Cell 12: 11.0659Cell 13: 11.3654Cell 14: 11.4464Cell 15: 11.0356Cell 16: 10.8218

Per-region edge density (4 × 4 grid). Uneven distribution may indicate localized editing or splicing; uniform fields are typical of fully synthetic outputs.

Range: 4.195731.1531

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
71.05
Std deviation
8.43
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
3.059
Mean Δ
1.57
σ
1.70
CV
1.082
Uniformity
-0.082

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 16, 2026, 10:19 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous