ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · B40D50E0 · IMAGE

KAnalyzed by@kcangnl_7e3c6
ZONN Analysis
0

Probably AI-generated

More signals lean toward AI generation than real, but some give weaker readings. Treat with caution.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 40/100

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 (1–96). 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

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)read real · 1/100

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

  • Color Distributionread real · 2/100

    Global color distribution shape vs natural-photo baselines.

Model Agreement

40%

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 45
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
1
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
96
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
18
CommFor (4803 Generators)
52
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
SigLIP AI Detector
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 49
▸ expand
Color Distribution
2
Noise Pattern
86
Error Level Analysis
24
Frequency Analysis
76
Pixel Analysis
57
Edge Consistency
51
Compression Quality
50
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
860 × 484 px
Aspect
1.777
File size
709.2 KB
Bytes / pixel
1.745

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.851
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.191
Power-law β
-3.58
Grid energy
0.224

Edge Consistency

CV 0.484
Cell 1: 6.6720Cell 2: 10.5734Cell 3: 8.7674Cell 4: 1.7407Cell 5: 4.2579Cell 6: 11.4691Cell 7: 9.8882Cell 8: 5.0674Cell 9: 5.6170Cell 10: 11.1708Cell 11: 8.8674Cell 12: 3.0083Cell 13: 5.3018Cell 14: 5.2191Cell 15: 4.5123Cell 16: 1.6984

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

Range: 1.698411.4691

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
33.50
Std deviation
5.79
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
1.435
Mean Δ
1.74
σ
1.99
CV
1.143
Uniformity
-0.143

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnJun 1, 2026, 1:51 PM
Analyzed by@kcangnl_7e3c6