ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 81527CD4 · 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 50/100 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.

Why this verdict

  • Error Level Analysisread real · 6/100

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

  • Color Distributionread real · 11/100

    Global color distribution shape vs natural-photo baselines.

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
GramNet Texture
50
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
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 39
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
6
Color Distribution
11
Frequency Analysis
69
Noise Pattern
66
Pixel Analysis
35
Compression Quality
40
Edge Consistency
46
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 56
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
55
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
2560 × 1440 px
Aspect
1.778
File size
446.5 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.124

Edge Consistency

CV 0.617
Cell 1: 13.6514Cell 2: 13.3585Cell 3: 15.5415Cell 4: 19.2559Cell 5: 6.9010Cell 6: 8.2734Cell 7: 14.5436Cell 8: 27.6192Cell 9: 8.7582Cell 10: 6.9349Cell 11: 19.4760Cell 12: 23.9241Cell 13: 3.4424Cell 14: 3.1536Cell 15: 4.0133Cell 16: 3.6094

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

Range: 3.153627.6192

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
84.62
Std deviation
9.20
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
2.995
Mean Δ
2.15
σ
3.04
CV
1.415
Uniformity
-0.415

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 6, 2026, 1:53 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous