ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · 9A714666 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Probably real

More signals lean toward real than AI, but some give weaker readings. Worth a second look on close inspection.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 50/100

Analysed Specimen

Original analysed image
Forensic suspicion heatmap
OriginalHeatmap
POS55/100
No flagged regions

Heads up — 3 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.

AI generator fingerprints detected

AI evidence

Frequency analysis (FFT score 69/100) shows modern diffusion-style upsampling patterns, but the ML models say "real". This combination is a known blind spot for newer generators (SDXL, FLUX, Midjourney v6) — the verdict above may be misleading.

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 (0–88). 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.

  • SigLIP AI Detectorread real · 2/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

Model Agreement

35%

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 26
▸ expand
CommFor (4803 Generators)
0
SigLIP AI Detector
2
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
3
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
88
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
14
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 43
▸ expand
Color Distribution
11
Error Level Analysis
28
Frequency Analysis
69
Noise Pattern
63
Compression Quality
40
Edge Consistency
42
Pixel Analysis
45
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
800 × 600 px
Aspect
1.333
File size
69.3 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.148

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.745
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.018
Power-law β
-3.05
Grid energy
0.383

Edge Consistency

CV 0.727
Cell 1: 0.9279Cell 2: 0.9955Cell 3: 0.7310Cell 4: 0.9828Cell 5: 9.6197Cell 6: 8.6532Cell 7: 8.8934Cell 8: 8.6420Cell 9: 29.2429Cell 10: 28.2521Cell 11: 29.4142Cell 12: 24.9651Cell 13: 24.7465Cell 14: 18.0497Cell 15: 16.5133Cell 16: 19.5858

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

Range: 0.731029.4142

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
91.54
Std deviation
9.57
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
3.429
Mean Δ
1.63
σ
1.77
CV
1.087
Uniformity
-0.087

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 18, 2026, 5:14 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous