ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 920440DD · IMAGE

ZAnalyzed by@zonner
ZONN Analysis
0

Inconclusive

Signals are mixed or weak. We can't tell with confidence — context, source, and your own judgement matter here.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 44/100

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.

Just below the AI threshold

Note

The 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.

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).

Uneven compression (ELA)

AI evidence

ELA coefficient of variation is 3.58 — different regions show noticeably different compression levels. Common with composites, edits, or AI generations.

ML detectors see this image differently

Note

ML scores span a wide range (0–99). 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.

Why this verdict

  • CommFor (4803 Generators)read real · 0/100

    CommFor detector trained across 4,803 generator variants for broad coverage.

  • Error Level Analysisread real · 0/100

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

Model Agreement

33%

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 57
▸ expand
CommFor (4803 Generators)
0
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
99
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
97
SigLIP AI Detector
47
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
51
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 38
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
0
Pixel Analysis
17
Frequency Analysis
71
Noise Pattern
36
Color Distribution
40
Compression Quality
48
Edge Consistency
52
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 39
▸ expand
ICC Profile
18
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
531 × 588 px
Aspect
0.903
File size
48.6 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.160

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.728
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.102
Power-law β
-2.88
Grid energy
0.409

Edge Consistency

CV 0.460
Cell 1: 26.1998Cell 2: 5.3438Cell 3: 12.3590Cell 4: 8.4714Cell 5: 27.2740Cell 6: 13.5965Cell 7: 13.8627Cell 8: 12.8740Cell 9: 7.7172Cell 10: 7.4575Cell 11: 15.7630Cell 12: 9.3007Cell 13: 10.0463Cell 14: 9.2045Cell 15: 13.3589Cell 16: 13.4272

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

Range: 5.343827.2740

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
236.35
Std deviation
15.37
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
3.326
Mean Δ
0.76
σ
2.73
CV
3.584
Uniformity
-2.584

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 16, 2026, 10:44 AM
Analyzed by@zonner