ZONN.ai Forensic Report
Case · E2D79385 · IMAGE
Inconclusive
Signals are mixed or weak. We can't tell with confidence — context, source, and your own judgement matter here.
Analysed Specimen
Heads up — 6 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
Note2 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Python Siglip, Ml Commfor). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.
Just below the AI threshold
NoteThe 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 evidenceThe 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 evidenceFFT analysis found strong upsampling patterns — a fingerprint of diffusion-model VAE decoders (latent → pixel-space upscale).
Weak overall confidence
NoteAggregate verdict confidence is 33/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.
No ICC color profile
AI evidenceThe 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.
Google Lens
Yandex
TinEye
Bing VisualWhy this verdict
- INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)flagged AI · 100/100
BEiT-Large dual-head classifier trained on FLUX, Midjourney, and real photo corpora.
- Error Level Analysisread real · 21/100
Error Level Analysis. Re-saves and diffs to expose uneven compression regions.
Model Agreement
Variance across 5 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.
Evidence — 15 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 Models5 detectors · mean 65▸ expand▾ collapse
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 46▸ expand▾ collapse
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54▸ expand▾ collapse
Image Quality
- Dimensions
- 1086 × 1448 px
- Aspect
- 0.750
- File size
- 193.8 KB
- Bytes / pixel
- 0.126
Frequency Analysis
Edge Consistency
Per-region edge density (4 × 4 grid). Uneven distribution may indicate localized editing or splicing; uniform fields are typical of fully synthetic outputs.
Range: 2.5933 – 36.3768
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