ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 721D70D9 · IMAGE

MAnalyzed by@muzip
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 · 46/100

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.

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).

ML detectors see this image differently

Note

ML scores span a wide range (9–99). Different architectures read different feature spaces; the majority vote strengthens the consensus, but no single model is fully reliable here.

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

  • SigLIP AI Detectorflagged AI · 99/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)flagged AI · 99/100

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

Model Agreement

32%

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 66
▸ expand
SigLIP AI Detector
99
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
99
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
95
CommFor (4803 Generators)
9
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
44
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 46
▸ expand
Pixel Analysis
17
Color Distribution
21
Frequency Analysis
70
Compression Quality
63
Error Level Analysis
40
Noise Pattern
56
Edge Consistency
52
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
2.94 MB
Bytes / pixel
2.939

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.733
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.082
Power-law β
-2.94
Grid energy
0.401

Edge Consistency

CV 0.466
Cell 1: 10.0516Cell 2: 12.4431Cell 3: 15.0587Cell 4: 10.0149Cell 5: 12.7340Cell 6: 16.6822Cell 7: 16.9172Cell 8: 11.3418Cell 9: 15.4878Cell 10: 22.4241Cell 11: 23.6714Cell 12: 18.6409Cell 13: 24.6570Cell 14: 39.3436Cell 15: 41.3199Cell 16: 27.3862

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

Range: 10.014941.3199

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
93.79
Std deviation
9.68
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
4.899
Mean Δ
2.40
σ
2.16
CV
0.901
Uniformity
0.099

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 19, 2026, 4:05 PM
Analyzed by@muzip