ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · ADC5D6A8 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Inconclusive

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

Signal ConfidenceWeak · 18/100

Analysed Specimen

Analysed content
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 Img Cifake, Ml Img Deepfake, Ml Img 3class, Ml Python Siglip). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.

Signals do not converge

Note

Score 50/100 lands in the middle of the inconclusive zone. Detectors did not agree on a story — review multiple lines of evidence below.

Weak overall confidence

Note

Aggregate verdict confidence is 18/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.

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

  • Error Level Analysisread real · 21/100

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

  • Pixel Analysisread real · 35/100

    Low-level pixel statistics: saturation cliffs, channel histograms, banding.

Model Agreement

100%

Variance across 8 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 18 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 Models8 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
AI Image Detector
50
Deepfake Detector
50
3-Class Detector
50
SigLIP AI Detector
50
RIGID (DINOv2)
50
Fourier Zero-Shot
50
NPR Artifacts
50
GramNet Texture
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 41
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
21
Pixel Analysis
35
Noise Pattern
64
Color Distribution
39
Frequency Analysis
41
Edge Consistency
43
Compression Quality
45
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 56
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
55
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
1086 × 1448 px
Aspect
0.750
File size
193.8 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.126

Edge Consistency

CV 0.698
Cell 1: 8.2712Cell 2: 11.1964Cell 3: 12.8364Cell 4: 5.8010Cell 5: 10.1334Cell 6: 36.3768Cell 7: 20.4562Cell 8: 8.1859Cell 9: 4.9537Cell 10: 16.5975Cell 11: 16.4471Cell 12: 2.5933Cell 13: 6.1492Cell 14: 11.0004Cell 15: 28.5253Cell 16: 4.6805

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

Range: 2.593336.3768

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
92.29
Std deviation
9.61
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
2.986
Mean Δ
1.88
σ
2.24
CV
1.191
Uniformity
-0.191

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 6, 2026, 10:53 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous