ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 8A888E3E · IMAGE

MAnalyzed by@muzip
ZONN Analysis
0

Probably AI-generated

More signals lean toward AI generation than real, but some give weaker readings. Treat with caution.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 45/100

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 (2–97). 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

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)read real · 2/100

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

  • xRayon ConvNeXtV2flagged AI · 97/100

    ConvNeXtV2 detector trained on FLUX, DALL-E 3, SDXL, SD3.5, and Midjourney v6.

Model Agreement

38%

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 35
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
2
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
97
CommFor (4803 Generators)
19
SigLIP AI Detector
20
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
23
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 49
▸ expand
Color Distribution
17
Frequency Analysis
72
Error Level Analysis
32
Noise Pattern
60
Compression Quality
60
Pixel Analysis
57
Edge Consistency
48
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
1254 × 1254 px
Aspect
1.000
File size
3.42 MB
Bytes / pixel
2.280

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.794
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.105
Power-law β
-3.37
Grid energy
0.309

Edge Consistency

CV 0.551
Cell 1: 3.3247Cell 2: 12.7740Cell 3: 19.4789Cell 4: 12.3498Cell 5: 15.4336Cell 6: 10.4078Cell 7: 6.0797Cell 8: 4.1456Cell 9: 12.1245Cell 10: 12.5685Cell 11: 25.9822Cell 12: 30.7480Cell 13: 8.7333Cell 14: 11.9401Cell 15: 16.5335Cell 16: 29.2026

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

Range: 3.324730.7480

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
99.55
Std deviation
9.98
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
3.584
Mean Δ
2.02
σ
2.07
CV
1.026
Uniformity
-0.026

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 19, 2026, 4:23 PM
Analyzed by@muzip