ZONN.ai Forensic Report
Case · 780B5B4D · IMAGE
Inconclusive
Signals are mixed or weak. We can't tell with confidence — context, source, and your own judgement matter here.
Analysed Specimen
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.
ML detectors disagree with each other
Note2 models confidently say "AI" (Itsnotai V2, Xrayon Convnext) while 2 confidently say "real" (Ml Python Siglip, Bombek1). This image sits at the edge of what ML can decide — manual review is recommended.
Just above the real threshold
NoteThe score (45/100) is between real (40) and inconclusive. There is not enough confidence to call this a clean "real" verdict.
Upsampling artifacts in the frequency domain
AI evidenceFFT analysis found strong upsampling patterns — a fingerprint of diffusion-model VAE decoders (latent → pixel-space upscale).
ML detectors see this image differently
NoteML scores span a wide range (0–93). Different architectures read different feature spaces; the majority vote strengthens the consensus, but no single model is fully reliable here.
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
Yandex
TinEye
Bing VisualEvidence — 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.