ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · C40D57D4 · IMAGE

MAnalyzed by@muzip
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 · 54/100

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

  • SigLIP AI Detectorflagged AI · 100/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

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

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

Model Agreement

26%

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 73
▸ expand
SigLIP AI Detector
100
CommFor (4803 Generators)
0
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
98
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
90
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
Color Distribution
14
Frequency Analysis
83
Noise Pattern
81
Error Level Analysis
21
Pixel Analysis
45
Edge Consistency
54
Compression Quality
53
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
111.5 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.109

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.814
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.490
Power-law β
-3.27
Grid energy
0.280

Edge Consistency

CV 0.412
Cell 1: 10.5027Cell 2: 3.1505Cell 3: 2.8647Cell 4: 14.8618Cell 5: 9.3337Cell 6: 7.2747Cell 7: 6.1519Cell 8: 16.2009Cell 9: 13.7154Cell 10: 11.3979Cell 11: 9.1222Cell 12: 6.2583Cell 13: 8.5190Cell 14: 13.5521Cell 15: 9.1672Cell 16: 6.3678

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

Range: 2.864716.2009

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
39.53
Std deviation
6.29
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
2.284
Mean Δ
2.30
σ
2.74
CV
1.191
Uniformity
-0.191

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 18, 2026, 5:15 PM
Analyzed by@muzip