ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · C73ECC56 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Probably AI-generated

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

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 42/100

Analysed Specimen

Original analysed image
Forensic suspicion heatmap
OriginalHeatmap
POS55/100
No flagged regions

Heads up — 5 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).

Uneven compression (ELA)

AI evidence

ELA coefficient of variation is 1.70 — different regions show noticeably different compression levels. Common with composites, edits, or AI generations.

ML detectors see this image differently

Note

ML scores span a wide range (21–98). 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

  • Error Level Analysisread real · 0/100

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

  • xRayon ConvNeXtV2flagged AI · 98/100

    ConvNeXtV2 detector trained on FLUX, DALL-E 3, SDXL, SD3.5, and Midjourney v6.

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 56
▸ expand
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
98
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
94
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
21
CommFor (4803 Generators)
33
SigLIP AI Detector
38
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 33
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
0
Pixel Analysis
17
Color Distribution
17
Noise Pattern
30
Frequency Analysis
69
Compression Quality
45
Edge Consistency
51
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
1280 × 720 px
Aspect
1.778
File size
1.26 MB
Bytes / pixel
1.435

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.705
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.055
Power-law β
-2.98
Grid energy
0.443

Edge Consistency

CV 0.490
Cell 1: 31.7427Cell 2: 19.5200Cell 3: 16.5949Cell 4: 13.0695Cell 5: 23.6409Cell 6: 24.4117Cell 7: 7.5544Cell 8: 8.1418Cell 9: 30.1160Cell 10: 37.2044Cell 11: 27.2626Cell 12: 24.0052Cell 13: 13.6804Cell 14: 6.9039Cell 15: 10.0326Cell 16: 10.1727

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

Range: 6.903937.2044

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
308.07
Std deviation
17.55
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
4.756
Mean Δ
1.41
σ
2.40
CV
1.704
Uniformity
-0.704

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnJun 3, 2026, 1:14 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous