ZONN.ai Forensic Report
Case · 7C4C85BC · 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 — 5 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
Note2 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Python Siglip, Ml Commfor). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.
Just below the AI threshold
NoteThe score (58/100) is right at the boundary between inconclusive and AI (60). A single signal flip could swing the verdict — treat this as suggestive rather than definitive.
No metadata at all
AI evidenceThe 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 evidenceFFT analysis found strong upsampling patterns — a fingerprint of diffusion-model VAE decoders (latent → pixel-space upscale).
No ICC color profile
AI evidenceThe 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
Yandex
TinEye
Bing VisualWhy 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
Variance across 5 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.
Evidence — 15 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 Models5 detectors · mean 69▸ expand▾ collapse
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 45▸ expand▾ collapse
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54▸ expand▾ collapse
Image Quality
- Dimensions
- 1132 × 1390 px
- Aspect
- 0.814
- File size
- 234.6 KB
- Bytes / pixel
- 0.153
Frequency Analysis
Edge Consistency
Per-region edge density (4 × 4 grid). Uneven distribution may indicate localized editing or splicing; uniform fields are typical of fully synthetic outputs.
Range: 7.4992 – 43.8180
Noise Fingerprint
- Variance
- 129.59
- Std deviation
- 11.38
- Mean
- -0.0
- Spatial corr.
- 3.864
- Mean Δ
- 2.29
- σ
- 2.65
- CV
- 1.158
- Uniformity
- -0.158