ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · A6EEFE5C · 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 ConfidenceWeak · 26/100

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.

Multiple detectors unreachable

Note

4 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Python Siglip, Ml Commfor, Itsnotai V2, Xrayon Convnext). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.

Heavy JPEG compression

Note

Bytes-per-pixel is 0.032 — the image is heavily compressed. ML accuracy drops on heavily re-encoded images; treat the verdict with extra caution.

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).

Weak overall confidence

Note

Aggregate verdict confidence is 26/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.

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

  • Noise Patternflagged AI · 93/100

    Sensor-noise (PRNU) fingerprint check. Real cameras leave camera-unique noise.

  • Color Distributionread real · 7/100

    Global color distribution shape vs natural-photo baselines.

Model Agreement

100%

Variance across 5 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 15 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 Models5 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
SigLIP AI Detector
50
CommFor (4803 Generators)
50
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
50
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
50
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 51
▸ expand
Noise Pattern
93
Color Distribution
7
Error Level Analysis
17
Pixel Analysis
75
Frequency Analysis
74
Edge Consistency
45
Compression Quality
48
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 45
▸ expand
ICC Profile
35
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

AI-typical dimensions
Dimensions
1536 × 2048 px
Aspect
0.750
File size
97.3 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.032

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.830
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.137
Power-law β
-3.63
Grid energy
0.255

Edge Consistency

CV 0.660
Cell 1: 1.0753Cell 2: 1.0109Cell 3: 3.4078Cell 4: 2.8616Cell 5: 2.3103Cell 6: 2.7371Cell 7: 7.7324Cell 8: 5.2298Cell 9: 1.1163Cell 10: 2.5320Cell 11: 6.5712Cell 12: 4.5133Cell 13: 1.2325Cell 14: 9.3130Cell 15: 6.6083Cell 16: 8.9706

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

Range: 1.01099.3130

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
13.38
Std deviation
3.66
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
0.966
Mean Δ
1.20
σ
1.49
CV
1.242
Uniformity
-0.242

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 13, 2026, 5:43 AM
Analyzed byAnonymous