ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · CD90ED6C · 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 ConfidenceLimited · 41/100

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.

Just below the AI threshold

Note

The score (58/100) is right at the boundary between inconclusive and AI (60). A single signal flip could swing the verdict — treat this as suggestive rather than definitive.

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).

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)flagged AI · 100/100

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

  • xRayon ConvNeXtV2flagged AI · 98/100

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

Model Agreement

44%

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 65
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
98
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
73
SigLIP AI Detector
30
CommFor (4803 Generators)
36
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
Frequency Analysis
82
Error Level Analysis
31
Color Distribution
36
Noise Pattern
62
Pixel Analysis
57
Compression Quality
56
Edge Consistency
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
181.6 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.177

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.785
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.508
Power-law β
-3.04
Grid energy
0.323

Edge Consistency

CV 0.445
Cell 1: 4.6646Cell 2: 21.6280Cell 3: 23.1831Cell 4: 4.5311Cell 5: 10.4865Cell 6: 24.8876Cell 7: 25.4459Cell 8: 9.3978Cell 9: 7.8568Cell 10: 14.9011Cell 11: 20.1635Cell 12: 17.3918Cell 13: 29.5757Cell 14: 27.1390Cell 15: 21.6526Cell 16: 24.1487

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

Range: 4.531129.5757

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
77.65
Std deviation
8.81
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
4.411
Mean Δ
2.99
σ
3.10
CV
1.036
Uniformity
-0.036

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 15, 2026, 12:04 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous