ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 4FE52A18 · 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 ConfidenceWeak · 18/100

Analysed Specimen

Analysed content
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.

Multiple detectors unreachable

Note

4 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Img Cifake, Ml Img Deepfake, Ml Img 3class, Ml Python Siglip). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.

Signals do not converge

Note

Score 54/100 lands in the middle of the inconclusive zone. Detectors did not agree on a story — review multiple lines of evidence below.

Weak overall confidence

Note

Aggregate verdict confidence is 18/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.

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.

Google Lens logoGoogle LensYandex logoYandexTinEye logoTinEyeBing logoBing Visual

Why this verdict

  • Color Distributionread real · 34/100

    Global color distribution shape vs natural-photo baselines.

  • Noise Patternflagged AI · 65/100

    Sensor-noise (PRNU) fingerprint check. Real cameras leave camera-unique noise.

Model Agreement

100%

Variance across 8 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 18 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 Models8 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
AI Image Detector
50
Deepfake Detector
50
3-Class Detector
50
SigLIP AI Detector
50
RIGID (DINOv2)
50
Fourier Zero-Shot
50
NPR Artifacts
50
GramNet Texture
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 49
▸ expand
Color Distribution
34
Noise Pattern
65
Error Level Analysis
37
Edge Consistency
58
Frequency Analysis
57
Pixel Analysis
45
Compression Quality
48
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 56
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
55
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
467 × 680 px
Aspect
0.687
File size
81.2 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.262

Edge Consistency

CV 0.342
Cell 1: 17.9360Cell 2: 23.4737Cell 3: 22.6363Cell 4: 21.1572Cell 5: 10.2879Cell 6: 15.7117Cell 7: 11.7449Cell 8: 15.9053Cell 9: 15.7481Cell 10: 12.5142Cell 11: 6.3122Cell 12: 14.3172Cell 13: 16.2914Cell 14: 13.0983Cell 15: 6.7362Cell 16: 9.1729

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

Range: 6.3122 – 23.4737

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
84.60
Std deviation
9.20
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
3.352
Mean Δ
1.89
σ
1.78
CV
0.941
Uniformity
0.059

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author—
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 6, 2026, 1:33 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous