ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · A2DAEBC2 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Very likely AI-generated

Most signals point to AI generation. Detection tools are not perfect — treat this as a strong indication, not a verdict.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 48/100

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 (0–100). 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

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

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

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)flagged AI · 100/100

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

Model Agreement

25%

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 61
▸ expand
CommFor (4803 Generators)
0
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
98
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
88
SigLIP AI Detector
30
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 48
▸ expand
Color Distribution
22
Frequency Analysis
73
Error Level Analysis
31
Noise Pattern
61
Compression Quality
56
Pixel Analysis
45
Edge Consistency
51
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

AI-typical dimensions
Dimensions
1024 × 1024 px
Aspect
1.000
File size
166.9 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.163

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.743
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.193
Power-law β
-3.08
Grid energy
0.385

Edge Consistency

CV 0.483
Cell 1: 7.0073Cell 2: 2.6588Cell 3: 3.7780Cell 4: 18.2515Cell 5: 23.8120Cell 6: 19.5037Cell 7: 17.0511Cell 8: 19.1149Cell 9: 21.1922Cell 10: 14.1501Cell 11: 26.5833Cell 12: 33.1569Cell 13: 12.1635Cell 14: 9.2758Cell 15: 24.2932Cell 16: 25.5506

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

Range: 2.658833.1569

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
85.73
Std deviation
9.26
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
4.332
Mean Δ
2.27
σ
2.37
CV
1.041
Uniformity
-0.041

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 18, 2026, 5:15 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous