ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · EB76E738 · 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 · 45/100

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 2.35 — 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 (6–100). 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

  • 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 · 0/100

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

Model Agreement

33%

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 58
▸ expand
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
98
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
6
CommFor (4803 Generators)
34
SigLIP AI Detector
57
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 42
▸ expand
Error Level Analysis
0
Frequency Analysis
73
Noise Pattern
35
Color Distribution
38
Pixel Analysis
57
Edge Consistency
43
Compression Quality
45
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
1.09 MB
Bytes / pixel
1.239

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.734
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.173
Power-law β
-2.91
Grid energy
0.400

Edge Consistency

CV 0.705
Cell 1: 23.0825Cell 2: 22.5749Cell 3: 21.2281Cell 4: 15.0469Cell 5: 6.3563Cell 6: 7.6080Cell 7: 2.0546Cell 8: 36.9755Cell 9: 13.0995Cell 10: 21.2172Cell 11: 3.7127Cell 12: 23.1840Cell 13: 9.3110Cell 14: 8.8055Cell 15: 5.8034Cell 16: 0.7464

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

Range: 0.746436.9755

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
227.03
Std deviation
15.07
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
3.494
Mean Δ
1.34
σ
3.14
CV
2.347
Uniformity
-1.347

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnJun 6, 2026, 9:15 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous