ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 65CD8507 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Very likely real

Most signals point to a real, human-captured source. Detection tools are not perfect — treat this as a strong indication, not a verdict.

Signal ConfidenceWeak · 30/100

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

2 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Python Siglip, Ml Commfor). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.

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).

Uneven compression (ELA)

AI evidence

ELA coefficient of variation is 1.55 — different regions show noticeably different compression levels. Common with composites, edits, or AI generations.

Weak overall confidence

Note

Aggregate verdict confidence is 30/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.

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

  • Error Level Analysisread real · 0/100

    Error Level Analysis. Re-saves and diffs to expose uneven compression regions.

  • Noise Patternflagged AI · 95/100

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

Model Agreement

100%

Variance across 2 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 12 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 Models2 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
SigLIP AI Detector
50
CommFor (4803 Generators)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 44
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
0
Noise Pattern
95
Pixel Analysis
17
Frequency Analysis
72
Color Distribution
36
Compression Quality
40
Edge Consistency
46
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
800 × 600 px
Aspect
1.333
File size
21.1 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.045

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.837
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.040
Power-law β
-3.55
Grid energy
0.245

Edge Consistency

CV 0.619
Cell 1: 1.9730Cell 2: 1.9689Cell 3: 1.5915Cell 4: 0.9860Cell 5: 3.1406Cell 6: 2.5368Cell 7: 5.6960Cell 8: 1.7839Cell 9: 3.7791Cell 10: 5.1769Cell 11: 1.4505Cell 12: 1.1736Cell 13: 1.0408Cell 14: 2.3925Cell 15: 1.5193Cell 16: 0.6306

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

Range: 0.63065.6960

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
9.62
Std deviation
3.10
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
0.535
Mean Δ
0.61
σ
0.94
CV
1.547
Uniformity
-0.547

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 10, 2026, 10:38 AM
Analyzed byAnonymous