ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · EACB248A · 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 ConfidenceWeak · 18/100

Analysed Specimen

Analysed content
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.

Multiple detectors unreachable

Note

4 ML detectors did not respond (Ml Img Cifake, Ml Img Deepfake, Ml Img 3class, Ml Python Siglip). The verdict was computed with reduced evidence; reliability is lower than usual.

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.

Weak overall confidence

Note

Aggregate verdict confidence is 18/100. Several detectors returned uncertain answers or were offline. Read the verdict as a guideline, not as a final answer.

No ICC color profile

AI 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 · 26/100

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

  • Noise Patternflagged AI · 68/100

    Sensor-noise (PRNU) fingerprint check. Real cameras leave camera-unique noise.

Model Agreement

100%

Variance across 8 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 18 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 Models8 detectors · mean 50
▸ expand
AI Image Detector
50
Deepfake Detector
50
3-Class Detector
50
SigLIP AI Detector
50
RIGID (DINOv2)
50
Fourier Zero-Shot
50
NPR Artifacts
50
GramNet Texture
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 45
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
26
Noise Pattern
68
Edge Consistency
35
Color Distribution
37
Pixel Analysis
57
Frequency Analysis
44
Compression Quality
45
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 56
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
55
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
1105 × 1423 px
Aspect
0.777
File size
195.4 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.127

Edge Consistency

CV 0.808
Cell 1: 3.7332Cell 2: 7.9982Cell 3: 21.6960Cell 4: 3.0288Cell 5: 4.4754Cell 6: 11.6276Cell 7: 26.0466Cell 8: 4.4457Cell 9: 2.7829Cell 10: 12.1448Cell 11: 29.4352Cell 12: 4.4612Cell 13: 4.3310Cell 14: 6.8107Cell 15: 27.5321Cell 16: 10.4430

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

Range: 2.782929.4352

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
85.15
Std deviation
9.23
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
2.681
Mean Δ
1.70
σ
1.89
CV
1.113
Uniformity
-0.113

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 6, 2026, 10:53 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous