ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 296C2317 · IMAGE

VAnalyzed by@vxqxqxq
ZONN Analysis
0

Very likely AI-generated

Most signals point to AI generation. Detection tools are not perfect — treat this as a strong indication, not a verdict.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 47/100

Analysed Specimen

Original analysed image
Forensic suspicion heatmap
OriginalHeatmap
POS55/100
No flagged regions
Camera
iPhone 16 Pro

Heads up — 3 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.

EXIF shows real camera capture

Real evidence

Image metadata records the camera (Apple iPhone 16 Pro). The ML models flag this as AI, but the file may be a real photograph that was edited rather than generated. False-positive risk is elevated.

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.

  • xRayon ConvNeXtV2flagged AI · 95/100

    ConvNeXtV2 detector trained on FLUX, DALL-E 3, SDXL, SD3.5, and Midjourney v6.

Model Agreement

47%

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 70
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
95
SigLIP AI Detector
94
CommFor (4803 Generators)
36
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
46
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
Noise Pattern
86
Frequency Analysis
73
Error Level Analysis
35
Color Distribution
36
Edge Consistency
58
Pixel Analysis
45
Compression Quality
48
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 43
▸ expand
Metadata
18
ICC Profile
62
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
1020 × 1813 px
Aspect
0.563
File size
323.7 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.179

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.848
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.068
Power-law β
-3.75
Grid energy
0.228

Edge Consistency

CV 0.345
Cell 1: 4.3317Cell 2: 6.3094Cell 3: 6.2786Cell 4: 13.0396Cell 5: 5.0847Cell 6: 6.2177Cell 7: 6.0473Cell 8: 10.0724Cell 9: 5.8458Cell 10: 7.4775Cell 11: 5.8224Cell 12: 5.1465Cell 13: 3.5090Cell 14: 8.5496Cell 15: 5.7706Cell 16: 5.1884

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

Range: 3.509013.0396

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
28.60
Std deviation
5.35
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
1.630
Mean Δ
1.42
σ
1.39
CV
0.979
Uniformity
0.021

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnAug 30, 2026, 11:22 PM
Analyzed by@vxqxqxq